THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


/jt^yw  •  ^^^l 


rX±t*w- 


j2j  cAJUQ***^ 


WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 


WORKMANSHIP  IN 
WORDS 


BY 


JAMES  P.  KELLEY 


BOSTON 
LITTLE,  BROWN,  AND  COMPANY 

1916 


Copyright,  1916, 
By  Little,  Beown,  and  Company 


All  rights  reserved 


NorfeooD  $rfBS 

Set  up  and  electrotyped  by  J.  S.  Cushing  Co.,  Norwood,  Mass.,  U.S.A. 

Presswork  by  S.  J.  Parkhill  &  Co.,  Boston,  Mass.,  U.S.A. 


PREFATORY 

If  any  reader  should  find  his  own  name  in  these 
pages,  I  ask  him  to  believe  that  my  criticisms, 
whether  just  or  not,  are  honest,  friendly,  and  well 
meant;  and  I  do  not  take  refuge,  as  a  reviewer 
may,  behind  the  screen  of  anonymity. 

I  suppose  the  English  language,  with  all  its 
faults,  is  on  the  whole  the  best  that  man  ever 
spoke.     Let  us  do  all  we  can  to  keep  it  good. 

J.  P.  K. 


1525141 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

3 


INTRODUCTORY  CHAPTERS 

CHAPTEB 

I  Preliminary 

II  Concerning  Form 8 

III  What  the  Play  Treats  On         .        .        .14 

IV  Truth 17 


GRAMMATICAL  PROPRIETY 


V 

93 

VI 

28 

VII 

35 

vni 

Comparisons  are  Odorous   . 

43 

IX 

Comparison  and  Coordination    . 

,       49 

X 

55 

XI 

fl8 

XII 

Some  Matters  of  Syntax    . 

83 

XIII 

Misused  Particles 

06 

XIV 

Misused  Words  in  General 

104 

XV 

119 

XVI 

131 

viii 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTEB 

XVII 

xvin 

XIX 

xx 

XXI 

XXII 

XXIH 

XXIV 

XXV 

XXVI 

xx  vn 


XXVIH 

XXIX 

XXX 

XXXI 

xxxn 
xxxin 
xxxiv 


xxxv 

XXXVE 

XXXVII 

XXXVIII 

XXXIX 


CLEARNESS 
Introductory  .... 
Punctuation  and  Clearness 
Formal  Clearness  (I)     . 
Formal  Clearness  (II) :  Only 
The  Squinting  Construction 
The  Automatic  Sentence 
The  Crazy  Sentence 
More  Insanity 


It 

Other  Pronouns 
Unclassified  Confusions 

EASE 

Preliminary     . 
Two  Forms  of  Clumsiness 
Punctuation  and  Ease  . 
Euphony  .... 
The  Awkward  Squad  (I) 
The  Awkward  Squad  (II) 
Formality  and  Good  Form 


page 
141 

145 

151 

162 
168 
174 
182 
189 
199 
208 
215 


231 

236 
241 

248 
256 
263 

272 


FORCE 

Good  Theory 283 

Bad  Practice 288 

Line  upon  Line,  Precept  upon  Precept  295 

Here  a  Little  and  There  a  Little    .  804 

The  Larger  Unit 314 

Index  of  Proper  Names         .        .        .  323 

General  Index 329 


I  recognize  but  one  mental  acquisition  as  an  essential  part 
of  the  education  of  a  lady  or  a  gentleman,  —  namely,  an 
accurate  and  refined  use  of  the  mother  tongue. 

—  Chables  W.  Eliot. 


INTRODUCTORY  CHAPTERS 


WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 


PRELIMINARY 

"An  appalling  increase  every  day  in  slipshod 
writing  that  would  not  have  been  tolerated  for 
one  moment  a  hundred  years  ago."  These  words 
are  Mr.  Thomas  Hardy's.  It  is  good  to  know  that 
"the  greatest  master  of  English  fiction"  —  I 
quote  from  Mr.  Henry  M.  Alden  —  believes  in 
Workmanship. 

We  are  not  concerned  here  with  the  standards 
of  a  hundred  years  ago,  nor  do  we  inquire  whether 
or  not  the  use  of  bad  English  is  increasing.  Cer- 
tain it  is  that  the  English  of  our  time  is  very 
far  from  what  it  should  be;  and  it  is  so  faulty 
because  we  have  not  been  taking  pains  to  make 
it  good. 

True,  we  have  from  John  Henry  Newman  the 
following  judgment : 


4  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

This  is  not  a  day  for  great  writers,  but  for  good 
writing,  and  a  great  deal  of  it.  There  never  was  a 
time  when  men  wrote  so  much  and  so  well,  and  that, 
without  being  of  any  great  account  themselves.  While 
our  literature  in  this  day,  especially  the  periodical, 
is  rich  and  various,  its  language  is  elaborated  to  a 
perfection  far  beyond  that  of  our  Classics,  by  the 
jealous  rivalry,  and  incessant  practice,  and  the  mutual 
influence,  of  its  many  writers. 

I  do  not  say  that  Newman  was  mistaken,  or  that 
his  words  would  not  apply  now;  but  it  is  safe  to 
affirm  that  great  improvement  is  possible  and  that 
its  price  is  plain  hard  work.  Furthermore,  a  style 
may  be  of  classic  excellence  in  the  higher  qualities 
of  good  writing  and  yet  leave  much  to  be  desired 
in  respect  to  what  I  may  call  the  minor  moralities. 
One  who  deals  largely  with  these  minor  moralities 
need  make  no  apology.  Mr.  Alden's  "  that  which 
determines  the  technique  of  literary  art,  while  it 
is  indispensable,  is  negative"  will  hold  good  if 
we  read,  while  it  is  negative,  is  indispensable. 

If  Buff  on  did  not  exactly  say  "Le  style,  c'est 
Vhomme",  he  has  been,  like  Falstaff,  "the  cause 
that  wit  is  in  other  men";  and  so  we  are  in- 
debted to  him  for  a  familiar  saying,  French  in  its 
neatness  and  point,  and  proverbial  in  its  con- 
densed wisdom.     Style  not  only  reveals  the  man; 


PRELIMINARY  5 

surely  reacting,  it  makes  the  man.  Style  reveals 
the  reader  by  selecting  him ;  and  surely  acting, 
it  makes  the  reader  also.  We  are  changed  into 
the  image  of  what  we  read  and  of  whatjEe_write, 
of  what  we  say  and  of  what  we  hear. 

At  this  point  be  it  said  that  the  whole  discourse 
of  this  book  bears  no  less  upon  private  communi- 
cation  than  upon  what  is  addressed  to  the  public ; 
and  upon  the  spoken  word  as  well  as  the  written 
or  printed  page.  And  workmanship  in  words  has 
to  dcTwiFh  style  in  the  most  inclusive  sense  of  the 
term ;  so  that  nothing  pertaining  to  the  expression 
of  thought  in  words  is  foreign  to  our  purpose. 

"Words,  words,  words!"  It  is  Hamlet  moody 
and  distracted  that  answers  thus  wearily  the 
question  of  Polonius.  "That  noble  and  most 
sovereign  reason"  is  "out  of  tune."  We  all 
sympathize  with  the  gloomy  prince,  for  we  have 
all  been  bored ;  but  to  despise  words  is  to  despise 
what  has  made  civilization  possible,  and  what 
conditions  human  progress.  Words  have  raised 
us  above  the  beasts  that  perish.  Without  them 
we  could  neither  do  the  business  of  life,  nor 
attain  its  felicities ;  in  the  larger  sense  hope  would 
not  exist,  nor  aspiration,  nor  imagination.  New- 
man says  of  the  Greek  Xo'70?  : 


\ 


6  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

It  stands  both  for  reason  and  for  speech,  and  it  is 
difficult  to  say  which  it  means  more  properly.  It 
means  both  at  once :  why  ?  because  really  they  can- 
not be  divided  —  because  they  are  in  a  true  sense  one. 
When  we  can  separate  light  and  illumination,  life  and 
motion,  the  convex  and  the  concave  of  a  curve,  then 
will  it  be  possible  for  thought  to  tread  speech  under 
foot,  and  to  hope  to  do  without  it. 

And  Robert  Louis  Stevenson  writes:  "In  short, 
the  first  duty  of  a  man  is  to  speak;  that  is  his 
chief  business  in  this  world." 

Words  fitly  spoken  are  verily  like  apples  of 
gold  in  pictures  of  silver  —  both  precious  and 
beautiful.     Literature  is  the  greatest  of  alLarls. 

It   is   democratic   like   music  —  universal   in   its 

v.  — ' ————— 

appeal.  He  that  will  may  not  only  enjoy  it  and 
profit  by  it ;  in  some  rudimentary  way,  at  least, 
he  may  practise  it.  If  we  live  in  the  world,  we 
must  use  words;  if  we  choose,  we  may  use  them 
well;  there  is  no  limit  for  the  humblest  mortal, 
save  in  his  own  capacity.  He  that  does  anything 
for  the  right  use  of  words  does  so  much,  directly 
or  indirectly,  for  character,  for  conduct,  for 
happiness. 

Walter  Pater  says : 

Still  scholars,  I  suppose,  and  not  only  scholars,  but 
all  disinterested  lovers  of  books,  will  always  look  to  it 


PRELIMINARY  7 

[literature]  as  to  all  other  fine  art,  for  a  refuge,  a  sort 
of  cloistral  refuge,  from  a  certain  vulgarity  in  the 
actual  world. 

This  is  true  enough,  so  far  as  it  goes;  but  as 
the  noblest  architecture  or  sculpture  is  ennobled 
by  the  freest  and  broadest  public  uses,  so  it  is 
the  chief  glory  of  literature  that  it  comes  home 
"to  men's  business  and  bosoms,"  shedding  light 
everywhere  like  the  sun  in  heaven,  into  brawling 
street  as  well  as  cloistral  study. 

Language  is  a  magnificent  instrument,  of  which 
we  all  must  needs  make  use.  Govern  the  ventages 
and  give  it  breath,  "and  it  will  discourse  most 
excellent  music."  No  one  knows  all  its  stops; 
no  one  has  mastered  its  harmonies,  its  wonderful 
compass,  its  infinite  modulations.  It  is  too  great 
an  organ  for  the  greatest  of  mortals  —  yet  the 
humblest  of  the  pure  in  heart  may  draw  from  it 
wonderful  melody. 

Let  me  add  that  the  pursuit  of  fitness  and  force 
in  the  use  of  words  is  no  irksome  drudgery. 
Whoever  studies  the  things  of  the  external  world 
is  sure  to  enjoy  his  work.  Words  are  natural  ob- 
jects, real  as  rocks  or  lilies;  they  are  endlessly 
interesting  and  delightful.  The  wealth  and 
wonder  of  them  is  the  heritage  of  all  mankind. 


II 

CONCERNING  FORM 

The  literature  of  our  times  is  journalistic. 
To  a  writer  who  had  ambition  without  crafts- 
manship a  publisher  said,  "We  care  far  more  for 
substance  than  for  form."  So  far  forth,  he  was 
at  one  with  the  news  editor  who  wants  a  fetching 
"story",  and  cares  not  to  have  it  told  in  the 
language  of  a  gentleman.  These  worthies  do 
indeed  care  for  form,  as  advertisers  and  dem- 
agogues care,  but  not  too  much  for  style  —  for 
good  breeding  working  out  in  mannerly  words. 
Goldsmith  says  that  "A  book  may  be  amusing 
with  numerous  errors,  or  it  may  be  dull  without 
a  single  absurdity."  But  if  we  are  bright,  we 
need  not  be  slovenly;  if  we  must  be  dull,  let  us 
be  dull  with  a  decent  regard  for  the  intelligent 
opinion  of  mankind. 

Doubtless  it  is  true  that  some  of  our  best 
English  is  written  for  the  great  dailies;   but  this 

8 


CONCERNING  FORM  9 

is  only  a  little  —  it  is  in  bad  company.  The 
fifteen-cent  magazines  have  lately  abounded  in  a 
kind  of  work  the  monotonous  cleverness  of  which 
becomes  a  wearisome  mannerism,  and  may 
be  even  more  harmful  than  the  frankly  stupid 
style.  All  this  is  bad  enough ;  but  it  is  easy  to 
find  some  excuse.  The  worst  of  the  situation  is 
that  the  English  language  is  abused  constantly 
in  periodicals  of  higher  class,  and  in  the  better 
sort  of  books  —  and  for  this  abuse  no  good  reason 
can  be  discovered. 

Time  was  when  the  printed  page  was  taken 
seriously.  An  author  was  a  personage;  a  book, 
as  such,  appealed  to  the  imagination.  It  was 
possible  for  a  library  to  be  a  consecrated  place, 
and  for  the  infrequent  magazine  to  give  a 
bookish  child  a  quickening  experience  long  to  be 
remembered  —  an  experience  which  was  the  stuff 
of  which  poetry  is  made.  Books  are  manu- 
factured now;  they  are  ground  out  in  the  mill; 
they  are  made  to  sell,  and  dumped  upon  the 
market.  If  a  novel  brings  in  the  big  royalties, 
who  cares  whether  or  not  it  is  written  in  English ! 
Even  persons  of  real  distinction  and  scholars  of 
high  attainment  write  as  if  they  were  Shaksperes 
and  need  not  trouble  themselves  about  detail  — 


10  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

as  if  their  wise  or  witty  thoughts  would  auto- 
matically get  to  themselves  fine  and  fitting  expres- 
sion. But  the  writers  of  our  day  are  not  geniuses, 
and  this  is  not  the  age  of  Elizabeth.  Vastly 
superior  in  some  respects,  in  others  vastly  inferior, 
the  twentieth  century  is  so  different  from  the 
seventeenth  that  it  must  needs  have  a  different 
literary  method.  Then,  imagination  was  so  free 
and  so  prodigiously  active  that  it  made  art;  art 
now,  by  fidelity  to  the  timeless  principles  of  form, 
must  control  the  imagination  and  chasten  the 
style.  And  to  the  technique  of  form  belongs 
conscientious  finish. 

In  the  elder  days  of  Art, 

Builders  wrought  with  greatest  care 

Each  minute  and  unseen  part ; 
For  the  Gods  see  everywhere. 

Men,  too,  see  everywhere.     They  see  more  than* 
they  consciously  observe.     They  miss  they  know 
not  what. 

One  meets  with  curious  pronouncements.  In 
Mr.  F.  T.  Cooper's  volume  on  "The  Craftsman- 
ship of  Writing"  I  read  that  style  is  "a  matter  of 
cadence  and  sound  sequence.**  T5uT"elsewhere 
the  author  says :  "Or  suppose  again  that  his 
fault  is  one  of  style.     You  may  point  out  that 


CONCERNING  FORM  n 

his  .  .  .  language  is  pompous,  or  high-colored, 
or  vulgar."  This  calls  for  a  new  definition  of 
style.  "Hence  it  would  seem",  Newman  says, 
"that  attention  to  the  language,  for  its  own 
sake,  evidences  not  the  true  poet,  but  the  mere 
artist."  And  he  speaks  of  a  time  "before  the 
theatre  had  degraded  poetry  into  an  exhibition, 
and  criticism  narrowed  it  into  an  art."  One 
wonders  if  Newman  makes  a  distinction  between 
the  higher  qualities  of  a  sculptor  or  an  architect 
(which  I  take  it  are  identical  with  the  higher 
qualities  of  a  poet)  and  his  artistic  qualities ! 

Art  is  a  great  word,  and  "mere  artist"  is  "a 
vile  phrase."  The  poet  at  his  supreme  achieve- 
ment is  then  most  the  artist,  and  the  artist  in 
words  at  his  humblest  task  need  not  cease  to  be 
a  poet.  Style  belongs  to  both  "art"  and  litera- 
ture, because  both  are  art;  and  style  in  speech 
or  writing,  so  far  from  being  a  mere  trick  of 
melody,  covers  every  kind  and  every  detail  of 
form.  Mere  artist !  The  Deity  whom  Newman 
served  as  truly  with  his  surpassing  literary  art 
as  in  his  priestly  function  is  the  Master  of  all 
artists.  His  art  is  poetry,  and  his  poetry  is 
art.  The  Style  in  which  the  heavens  declare 
his  glory,  in  which  the  untoiling  lilies  are  arrayed, 


12  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

in  which  ancient  psalmist  and  Galilean  Messiah 
spake,  is  more  than  "cadence  and  sound  se- 
quence." 

I  shall  deal  with  every  matter  of  form  in  dis- 
course as  having  to  do  with  style;  and  style, 
in  the  broadest  sense,  I  shall  regard  as  an  inevi- 
table and  inseparable  character  of  all  speech  and 
writing;  an  integral  and  essential  part  of  all 
literature. 

It  is  of  little  use  to  find  fault  with  authors  as 
a  class.  Many  individuals  of  the  craft  shall 
in  these  pages  exhibit  their  own  quality.  My 
notes  abound  in  quoted  passages  so  bad  that 
they  need  not  be  discussed;  some  debatable 
cases  will  be  briefly  studied. 

I  have  lately  read  with  profit,  amusement,  and 
mild  exasperation  a  book  on  "  The  Standard  of 
Usage  in  English  ",  from  which  I  shall  have  occa- 
sion to  quote.  The  eminent  author  seems  to  have 
been  "exceedingly  mad"  against  the  gramma- 
rians, purists,  and  other  "lewd  fellows  of  the  baser 
sort"  who  presume  to  have  opinions  about  the 
English  language  without  adequate  scholarship, 
and  without  due  reverence  for  the  "usage"  of 
their  betters.  If  I  bring  myself  under  the  same 
condemnation  with  these,  it  may  be  in  part  be- 


CONCERNING  FORM  13 

cause  I  subscribe  too  heartily  to  Professor  Louns- 
bury's !  own  comfortable  statement : 

In  itself  it  is  right  that  men  should  hold  and  express 
opinions  about  the  propriety  of  usages  already  existing 
or  coming  in,  and  do  all  that  in  them  lies  to  bring  about 
the  rejection  of  what  they  deem  undesirable. 

1  All  that  I  have  said  of  Professor  Lounsbury,  here  and  elsewhere 
in  these  pages,  was  in  manuscript  while  he  was  still  living  and  active. 
I  have  not  thought  it  necessary  to  make  any  material  change. 


Ill 

WHAT  THE  PLAY  TREATS  ON 
The  first  requisite  of  good  discourse  is  Truth. 

~  i  i  '  ■"  —  _ 

Later,  we  shall  very  briefly  consider  this  requisite. 
In  respect  of  form,  which  most  concerns  us  here, 
Grammatical  Propriety  is  fundamental.  Under 
this  head  we  may  take  up  some  matters  which 
would  by  a  rigid  analysis  be  excluded.  On  the 
other  hand  certain  topics  pertaining  to  grammar 
have  important  relations  to  other  subjects  pres- 
ently to  be  named ;  and  the  same  illustrative 
passage  may  be  quoted  more  than  once.  Con- 
versation is  often  instructive  and  stimulating 
without  being  hampered  by  elaborate  system, 
which  would  be  the  ruin  of  conversation.  It 
suits  my  views  to  claim  for  these  little  studies 
some  measure  of  the  same  freedom  that  belongs 
to  informal  talk.  After  Grammatical  Propriety, 
and  in  what  I  suppose  to  be  the  order  of  their 
importaTICeTthougli  not  necessarily  in  the  order 

14 


WHAT  THE  PLAY  TREATS  ON  15 

of  their  treatment,  may  be  mentionedjQearness^ 
Force,    and   Ease.     The   subject   of   Unity    will 
not   be    considered    except    incidentally    in   this 
book,  which  neither  claims  nor  attempts  to  be 
exhaustive. 

I  have  taken  some  pains  to  be  accurate  in 
quotation,  and  to  avoid  doing  injustice.  It 
should  be  remembered,  however,  that  passages 
are  used  because  of  their  relation  to  the  special 
topic  under  consideration,  rather  than  to  show 
the  general  merits  or  defects  of  the  author  quoted  ; 
and  that  my  limits  forbid  long  extracts  where 
short  ones  will  serve.  In  making  a  very  large 
number  of  quotations,  some  minor  errors,  greatly 
to  be  regretted,  are  practically  unavoidable.  In 
many  cases  material  has  been  rejected  because 
I  was  not  quite  sure  of  the  author's  meaning; 
and  probably  I  have  sometimes  misunderstood 
the  passages  I  have  used.  If  I  have  anywhere 
been  careless,  I  am  likely  to  be  the  chief  sufferer 
—  at  least,  I  hope  I  shall  be.  Finally,  I  cannot 
expect,  however  painstaking,  to  avoid  entirely 
in  my  own  work  the  faults  I  find  in  that  of  others, 
or  faults  to  which  I  am  blind. 

Professor  Lounsbury  quotes  the  following  pas- 
sage from  De  Quincey's  Essay  on  Style : 


16  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

Pedantry,  though  it  were  unconscious  pedantry, 
once  steadily  diffused  through  a  nation  as  to  the  very 
moulds  of  its  thinking  and  the  general  tendencies  of 
its  expression,  could  not  but  stiffen  the  natural  graces 
of  composition  and  weave  fetters  about  the  free  move- 
ments of  human  thought. 

True  enough;  but  it  has  been  well  said  that  he 
is  freest  who  is  most  obedient  to  law.  If  any 
man  is  "effectually  called"  to  the  work  of  writ- 
ing, and  is  properly  enlightened,  he  will  be  quite 
cheerfully  subject  to  the  laws  of  thought  and  the 
principles  of  expression. 


rv 

TRUTH 

In  a  book  on  Workmanship,  why  write  about 
Truth?  The  index  of  Professor  A.  S.  Hill's  ex- 
cellent treatise  on  "The  Principles  of  Rhetoric" 
makes  no  mention  of  the  topic  of  Truth ;  under 
Sincerity,  the  reader  is  referred  to  a  single  short 
paragraph.  There  is  some  reason,  then,  for  the 
question  I  have  just  asked. 

Surely  whatever  doctrine  of  truth  applies  to 
any  workman's  trade  applies  to  the  trade  of  writ- 
ing;  and  if  there  are  any  fine  arts  in  which  this 
doctrine  may  not  with  impunity  be  ^liregarded, 


1 


one  of  these  is  the  fine  art  of  discourse.     "False     u 
fronts    are  not  more  unworkmanlike  fln^  inartis- 
tic  in    personal    adornment    or    in    architecture    * 
than  are  shams  and    frauds  and  "fakes!!  and 
all  manner  of  lies  in  gmMi^  ftr  pnvat?  ntt^ra*^e 
And  the  habit,  however  formed,  of  not  matching 
the  real  fact  by  the  true  word,  or  of  treating  ethical 

17 


18  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

truth  as  if  it  were  in  no  way  sacred,  is  as  sure  to 
bring  retribution  to  the  writer  as  it  is  to  do  harm 
through  the  printedLpaae.  No  one,  I  suppose, 
would  say  of  "Mark  Twain"  that  he  was  insin- 
cere; it  is  not  without  significance,  however,  if 
when  he  tried  to  tell  his  chosen  biographer  the 
story  of  his  life  he  couldn't  tell  it  true. 

If  the  training  of  the  mendacious  reporter 
made  him  an  artist  in  words,  the  price  would  be 
far  too  high  for  the  "goods";  but  if  anything 
fair  and  fine  comes  out  of  bad  journalism  it  comes 
in  spite  of  the  badness.  Corruption  and  decay 
may  fertilize  corn  or  roses;  moral  disintegration 
and  spiritual  deadness  are  not  the  conditions 
for  a  literary  product  that  shall  be  wholesome, 
useful,  or  permanently  delightful. 

As  to  the  fact  of  untruth,  there  is  no  need  of 
calling  attention  to  the  irresponsible  "claims" 
and  reckless  statements  of  the  partisan  press. 
Upon  the  evil  of  it  all,  this  is  no  place  to  wax 
eloquent.  Ordinary  partisan  misrepresentation 
probably  is  less  harmful  than  the  satanic  cynicism 
of  the  brilliant  journalist.  In  periodicals  so 
ably  conducted  that  the  best  writers  and  most 
scholarly  readers  simply  cannot  keep  away  from 
them,    the    "  cocksureness "    of    caustic   editorial 


TRUTH  19 

writing  is  undoubtedly  effective;    but  it  makes 
neither  for  good  art  nor  for  good  morals. 

My  excellent  rural  neighbor  who  regularly 
introduced  his  statements  by  the  formula  "I 
b'lieve"  was  over-scrupulous.  Some  freedom, 
especially  in  expressing^  positive  opinions,  may 
be  conceded  to  the  writer.  But  it  is  not  well 
to  affirm  that  "every  schoolboy  knows"  what  in 
point  of  fact  the  average  schoolboy  does  not 
know;  or  to  say  that  "when  we"  —  Lowell  and 
Hale  —  "were  boys,  no  New  Englander  was 
capable  of  confounding"  shall  and  will;  or  to 
make  the  sweeping  statement  that  "Nine  out  of 
every  ten  tuberculous  patients  cannot  by  any 
possibility  secure  a  breath  of  fresh  air,  a  ray  of 
sunlight,  a  mouthful  of  nourishing  food,  or  an 
hour's  rest."  Born  closer  to  the  soil,  I  have 
thought  that  I  knew  the  old  New  England  rural 
dialect  even  better  than  Lowell  knew  it.  That 
the  farmer  was  in  general  a  pretty  safe  guide 
on  shall  and  will,  I  fully  believe;  but  I  should 
not  dare  to  say  that  he  never  went  wrong.  The 
conditions  of  the  New-York  East  Side,  unexag- 
gerated,  are  bad  enough.  The  heat  of  extempo- 
raneous preaching  might  excuse,  if  not  justify, 
the  sentence  I  have  quoted  about  the  tuberculous ; 


20  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

in  cold  print,  it  would  be  more  convincing  if  it 
were  credible.  Convincing  or  not,  what  we  say 
should  be  true.  In  the  long  run,  an  author's 
style  will  effect  more  for  good,  and  of  course  will 
be  better  merely  as  style,  if  carefully  pruned. 

To  tell  the  truth  is  a  hard  task,  as  any  one 
knows  who,  with  adequate  intelligence,  has  tried 

t>       it.     The  strenuous  spiritual  life  reacts  for  good 

^  upon  him  who  lives  it.  The  ideal  of  good  writing 
is  the  rational  _clear.  forcibleT  winning  utterance 
of  truth,  weighted  and  yet  given,  wings  by  the 

V      personality  ?of  the  writer. 

I» 

c 


I 


GRAMMATICAL  PROPRIETY 


DRY  AS  DUST 

Having  given  this  chapter  a  deterrent  heading, 
I  cannot  be  held  responsible  if  the  reader  disre- 
gards my  warning  and  comes  to  grief.  "Within 
the  memory  of  men  now  living  ",  Grammar  used 
to  be  taught,  after  a  fashion,  in  the  common 
schools.  I  dare  say  the  study  is  not  remembered 
with  enthusiasm ;  yet  much  study  of  the  grammar 
of  several  languages  has  not  been  to  me  a  weari- 
ness of  the  flesh.  The  subject  interested  me  and 
seemed  important.  But  now  comes  Professor 
Lounsbury,  giving  me  to  understand  that  there 
are  no  principles  of  "universal  grammar",  and 
thus  apparently  bringing  grammar  down  from  its 
supposed  scientific  dignity  to  a  mere  account  of 
"Usage."  And  along  with  my  delusions  about 
the  Science  of  Grammar,  and  kindly  memories 
of  Goodwin,  Gildersleeve,  and  Lane,  I  must 
give  up,  alas !  my  cherished  notions  of  democracy 

23 


24  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

in  the  things  of  the  mind ;  for  "Usage",  forsooth, 
is  the  usage  of  the  elect. 

Well,  I  will  pick  myself  up,  gathering  my  scat- 
tered and  shattered  wits  as  well  as  I  can.  Leav- 
ing high  themes  of  science  to  the  logicians  and 
psychologists  and  students  of  Comparative  Gram- 
mar (if  there  be  any  left  of  these  last),  I  will  take 
heart  to  believe  that  at  least  in  the  English  lan- 
guage there  are  certain  facts  of  Usage  —  I  use 
the  capital  U  for  a  while  in  deference  to  our 
eminent  teacher  —  which  may  be  and  indeed 
have  been  so  far  generalized  upon  as  to  establish 
what  it  is  convenient  to  call  principles;  prin- 
ciples to  which  the  Great  Masters  have  adhered 
in  the  main ;  principles  to  which  it  becomes  us 
of  the  common  herd  —  all  but  one  in  every  ten 
thousand  of  those  who  speak  or  write  for  the 
public  —  to  do  our  humble  best  to  conform. 

Language  being  used  to  convey  thoughts 
from  one  mind  to  another,  it  is  an  advantage 
to  have  certain  conventions  of  uniformity  in 
the  use  of  language  —  as,  for  instance,  the  con- 
vention of  concords  —  so  that  if  A  speaks  to  B 
there  will  be  the  more  chance  of  B's  getting  some 
true  notion  of  what  A  is  trying  to  say.  Or  sup- 
pose that  B  could  always,  by  exercise  of  sufficient 


DRY  AS  DUST  25 

diligence,    puzzle    out    A's    meaning;     still    the 

economy   of   business,    and   its    courtesy,   would 

require  that  A  should  speak  or  write  as  if  B's 

time  were  of  some  value.     Moreover  it  is  "more 

fun"  to  live  and  have  intercourse  with  the  world 

if    the    world    does    not    make    intercourse    too 

difficult. 

Let    us   look   at   the    subject    quite   seriously. 

Professor  Lounsbury  says : 

What  are  these  principles  of  universal  grammar,  it  is 
natural  to  ask.  They  can  hardly  be  anything  else 
than  rules  based  upon  practices  which  all  languages 
agree  in  observing. 

And  he  goes  on  to  show  that  languages  do  not 
all  agree,  etc.  The  phrase  "principles  of  uni- 
versal grammar"  is  not  mine.  It  may  be  better 
to  speak  of  general  principles,  deducible  from 
the  laws  of  thought,  which  apply  ideally  to  all 
conveyance  of  thought  by  means  of  words  ;  so  that 
if  any  language  is  too  rude  or  undeveloped  to 
conform  to  these  principles,  it  falls  short  of  the 
best  uses.  These  principles,  grounded  in  reason, 
are  in  line  with  expediency.  And  they  furnish 
a  standard,  observe,  by  which  we  distinguish 
between  that  which  is  rational  and  regular  in 
language,  and  that  which  is  called  idiom. 


26  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

Professor  Lounsbury  has  an  interesting  passage 
on  his  bete  noire,  the  purist : 

He  may  protest  against  the  employment  by  famous 
authors  of  certain  words  or  constructions.  He  may 
declare  these  opposed  to  reason,  contrary  to  the 
analogies  of  the  language,  or  tending  to  destroy  dis- 
tinctions which  should  be  maintained.  If  they  heed 
his  remonstrances,  well  and  good.  If  they  disregard 
them,  he  mistakes  his  position  when  he  pretends  to 
sit  in  judgment  upon  the  decisions  of  his  masters. 

Whatever  is,  in  the  way  of  undoubtedly  estab- 
lished English  usage,  must  be  admitted  to  be 
English.  It  does  not  follow  that  whatever  is 
English  is  right.  Neither  in  respect  to  language, 
nor  in  respect  to  anything  else,  does  the  man 
who  has  taken  the  trouble  to  work  his  way  to 
convictions  "mistake  his  position"  when  he  sits 
in  judgment  on  the  "decisions"  of  those  who 
have  worked  their  way  —  if  indeed  they  have  — 
to  different  convictions.  The  lowly  individual 
may  be  ridiculously  wrong,  and  the  high  and 
mighty  may  be  right  —  or  vice  versa;  but  the 
right  and  duty  of  private  judgment  is  the  life  of 
democracy.  And  some  of  us  devoutly  believe 
that  democracy  is,  under  God,  the  hope  of  man- 
kind;  the  hope  of  civilization  and  the  arts;   the 


DRY  AS  DUST  27 

hope  of  the  greatest  of  these  arts,  which  is  litera- 
ture. A  supercilious  attitude  towards  the  honest 
thinking  of  the  plain  people  is  snobbery.  I  like 
better  the  spirit  of  the  following  passage  from 
Walter  Pater's  Essay  on  Style : 

Alive  to  the  value  of  an  atmosphere  in  which  every 
term  finds  its  utmost  degree  of  expression,  and  with 
all  the  jealousy  of  a  lover  of  words,  he  [the  scholar] 
will  resist  a  constant  tendency  on  the  part  of  the  ma- 
jority of  those  who  use  them  to  efface  the  distinctions 
of  language,  the  facility  of  writers  often  reinforcing  in 
this  respect  the  work  of  the  vulgar. 

The  scholar,  I  should  like  to  think,  will  not  abate 
his  hostility  to  a  usage  that  enfeebles  the  language 
and  lowers  its  tone,  even  though  a  squad  of  callow 
candidates  for  the  Ph.D.  succeed  by  their  re- 
searches in  establishing,  to  the  satisfaction  of 
the  professor  who  is  their  guide,  that  such  is  the 
usage  of  the  masters. 


VI 

CONCORD 

The  worm  will  turn !  I  suppose  the  aggres- 
sive reactionaries  are  sometimes  in  effect  the 
best  friends  of  progress.  They  may  provoke 
a  counter-reaction ;  or  their  attacks  upon  the 
tendencies  they  view  with  alarm  may  serve 
both  to  advertise  a  progressive  movement  and 
to  make  it  conscious  of  itself.  In  my  purblind 
devotion  to  the  rules  of  grammar,  perhaps  I  am 
gathering  evidence  which  shall  help  to  upset 
them !  For  indeed  I  find  that  the  newspaper  is 
not  alone  in  bringing  grammar  into  contempt; 
it  is  backed  surprisingly  often  by  its  betters 
and  mine.  Yet  be  not  hasty,  my  friend  and 
critic !  As  the  newspapers  record  the  evil  that 
men  do,  but  give  little  account  of  the  great  every- 
day accumulation  of  the  good,  because  such 
account  would  not  be  "news",  so  I  note  an  "al- 
leged"  error  here  and  there,   but   say  nothing 

28 


CONCORD  29 

of  the  innumerable  cases  in  which  men,  if  they 
do  not  respect  the  rules,  at  least  conform  to 
them. 

Sing,  goddess,  of  Concord !  A  finite  verb 
"must"  agree  with  its  subject ;  but  the  newspaper 
says : 

From  every  Japanese  home  comes  delicate  tink- 
lings  from  odd  instruments.  .  .  .  The  most  common 
kind,  is  the  samasin  [sic].  It  has  a  square  body, 
covered  with  a  tight  cat-skin  and  a  long  black  neck. 

And  Professor  Lounsbury  informs  us  that  "Lan- 
dor's  reckless  assaults  upon  the  'vernacular 
idiom'  .  .  .  furnishes  a  most  amusing  chapter 
in  his  stormy  life." 

It  has  been  supposed  that  neither  .  .  .  nor  .  .  . 
should  be  followed  by  a  verb  in  the  singular 
number;  but  Mr.  Arthur  Christopher  Benson 
has  said,  "Neither  our  Lord  nor  Socrates  seem  to 
have  thought  ..."  A  very  prominent  American 
novelist  says  that  "Mrs.  Dallam  nor  her  house 
were  not  mentioned."  The  late  William  James 
wrote  English,  not  Jamesesque,  but  he  sometimes 
nods,  as  in  ...  neither  [of  three  writers 
mentioned]  seek  to  soften  the  abruptness  .  .  ." 
Matthew  Arnold  has  "Neither  Leopardi  nor 
Wordsworth  are  of  the  same  order,"  and  Newman 


30  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 


says  of  Empedocles  and  Oppian  that  "Neither 
wergupoets"  ! 

A  charming  essayist  speaks  of  "the  sister  arts  of 
Grammar  or  Elocution  ",  and  the  novelist  quoted 
above  has  it  that  "Julius  Caesar  or  George  Wash- 
ington himself  must  have  been  somewhat  ridicu- 
lous as  bridegrooms." 

Before  exhibiting  what  I  may  call  disagreement 
by  attraction,  ,1  quote  from  a  mighty  hunter 
that  ".  .  .  we  encountered  the  safari  of  an 
old  friend,  who,  with  Messrs.  Brooks  and  Allen, 
were  on  a  trip  ..."  This  kind  of  thing,  I 
believe,  is  not  uncommon. 

In  the  following  from  a  newspaper,  the  verb, 
instead  of  agreeing  with  its  subject,  is  attracted 
to  agree  with  the  nearer  noun,  and  changed  to 
"  go  ",  accordingly : 

Split-second  watches  and  careful  timing  .  .  .  have 
established  the  fact  that  the  average  speed  of  many 
ground  balls  .  .  .  go  at  the  rate  of  almost  60  miles  an 
hour.  A* 

The  Outlook  shows  the  same  mistake  in  "But 
multiplying  two  wrongs  do  not  make  them  right." 
"So  far  as  converting  the  people  are  concerned" 
was  copied  from  a  Western  weekly  which  died 
untimely  by  the  hand  of  a  Trust.     I  found  in 


CONCORD  31 

Harper1  s  Weekly,  "The  undertone  of  the  articles 
.  .  .  are,  noticeably  hostile."  A  lady  spoken  of 
as  "the  first  citizen  of"  no  mean  city  says  that 
"the  biography  of  the  saints  have  been,"  etc. 

A  different  kind  of  "attraction",  far  too  com- 
mon, is  exemplified  by  John  Fiske's  "...  one  of 
the  most  fascinating  books  of  travel  that  was 
ever  written ",  and  his  "...  one  of  the  most 
brilliant  contributions  to  geology  that  has  been 
made."  Somebody  writes,  translating  from 
Goethe,  "...  one  of  the  best  which  has  ever 
been  written";  but  an  English  translation  should 
be  English.  (The  use  of  "which"  for  that — 
a  more  pardonable  error  —  will  be  considered 
in  another  connection.)  It  is  convenient  to 
print  here  the  following  fragment  from  "  Modern 
Painters."  Of  the  two  outstanding  faults,  the 
second  would  properly  be  mentioned  in  a  later 
chapter. 

.  .  .  the  snow-storm,  one  of  the  very  grandest 
statements  of  sea-motion,  mist,  and  light  that  has  ever 
been  put  on  canvas,  even  by  Turner.  Of  course  it  was 
not  understood ;  his  finest  works  never  are ;  but  there 
was  some  apology  for  the  public's  not  comprehending 
this,  for  few  people  have  had  the  opportunity  of  seeing 
the  sea  at  such  a  time,  and  when  they  have,  cannot 
face  it. 


32  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

Ruskin  does  not  mean  that  statements  has  been 
put  on  canvas,  nor  that  few  people  cannot  face  it. 
He  wrote  wonderful  English;  but  this,  I  think, 
is  not  English. 

While  we  are  on  the  subject  of  concords,  it 
may  be  well  to  say  that  a  pronoun  of  the-fh-ird 
person  should  agree  with  its  antecedent  in  num- 
ber;  and  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  not  only 
relatives,  but  personal  and  demonstrative  pro- 
nouns oi'  the  third  person  referring  to  what  pre- 
cedes, properly  have  definite  antecedents  in  the 
context.  A  writer  who  is  recognized  as  a  scholar 
by  universities  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic 
hears  "that  everybody  is  reading  Captain  Hall's 
book,  losing  their  temper,"  etc.  (I  have  italicized 
two  words.)  The  happy  naturalist,  John  Muir, 
who  could  write  so  wonderfully  well  that  vulgar 
errors  are  out  of  place  in  his  work,  speaks  of 
"every  tree"  as  "tossing  their  branches."  A 
novelist  says  that  "everybody  was  enjoying 
themselves."  In  a  great  weekly  newspaper  is 
the  shocking  sentence,  "We  shall  understand  at 
last  that  every  man  and  woman  who  have  their 
homes  in  cities  is  living  in  exile."  In  "Culture 
and  Anarchy"  it  is  set  down  that  "teaching  de- 
mocracy to  put  its  trust  in  achievements  of  this 


CONCORD  33 

kind  is  merely  training  them  to  be  Philistines." 
To  me,  the  easy  harmony  of  a  sentence  is  worth 
more  than  anything  that  is  gained  by  such  an 
irregularity,  which  in  this  instance  could  have 
been  avoided  without  much  change.  And  as  for 
recasting  sentences  —  why  not !  The  world  can 
afford  to  wait. 

Grammarians  have  taught  that  a  predicate 
substantive  should  agree  with  th*e  subjecrSn 
case' Those  persons  who  defend  "it  is  me'r 
as  idiomatic  may  approve  of  William  James's 
"something  that  is  not  them."  Such  emancipated 
believers  in  (doubtful)  usage  need  not  object  to 
".  .  .  that  all  dispatches  of  State  which  he  may 
write  will  be  suaviter  in  modo  even  when  necessity 
demands  that  they  be  fortiter  in  re",  which  I 
quote  from  the  Congregationalism  And  a  writer 
in  the  Outlook  said  that  "The  Anglo-Saxon  may 
be  fortiter  in  re,  but  the  Oriental  is  certainly 
suaviter  in  modo."  So  Boston  and  New  York 
"agree",  for  once.  Taking  leave  to  imitate  the 
learned  writers  who  thus  enrich  their  English,  I 
remark  that  these  sentences,  while  they  may  be  ad- 
mirably in  other  respects,  are  very  badly  in  syntax. 

Most  of  the  following  extracts  have  accumulated 
since  the  first  draft  of  this  chapter  was  written : 


34  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

There  is,  to  be  sure,  the  younger  candidates  of  the 
Gaelic  revival,  but  somehow  too  much  of  their  work 
shows  the  shimmering  hues  of  decadence  rather  than 
the  strong  colours  of  life.  (Paul  Elmer  More.) 

...  as  no  one  but  the  Little  Chemist  and  the  Cure 
were  permitted  to  come  in.  .  .    (Sir  Gilbert  Parker.) 

Neither  of  them  were  very  familiar  with  the  forest. 

" — *        (F.  Marion  Crawford.) 

We  may  yet  assume  that  the  phenomena  of  moun- 
tain growth  does  not  naturally  lead  to  sudden  disturb- 
ances of  great  violence.  (N.  S.  Shaler.) 

.  .  .  that  little  group  wh&Jiad  managed  to  get  the 
control  of  affairs  into  its  hands.     (Woodrow  Wilson.) 

The  parties  which  support  these  candidates,  how- 
ever, all  agree  in  affirming  that  the  election  of  its 
special  favorite  is  the  one  thing  that  can  give  back 
peace  to  the  distracted  country. 

(James  Russell  Lowell.) 

As  the  men  passed  out,  each  one  reached  for  his  hat 
and  oilskins  hanging  behind  the  wooden  door,  and 
waddling  out  stood  huddled  together  in  the  driving 
rain  like  yellow  penguins,  their  eyes  turned  skyward. 

(F.  Hopkinson  Smith.) 

.  .  .  the  souls  of  every  man  Jack.    (Magazine  writer.) 


VII 

MY  ABRIDGMENTS 

While  camped  by  the  boma  .  .  .  crows  came  fa- 
miliarly around  tfie  tents.         (Theodore  Roosevelt.) 

While  camped  on  the  'Nzoi,  the  honey  birds  were 
almost  a  nuisance.  (Roosevelt.) 

While  in  this  condition,  war  broke  out  between 
Spain  and  America.  (Outlook.) 

While  [the  crowd  of  sheep  were]  thus  jammed,  the 
Don  and  the  shepherd  rushed  through  the  frightened 
crowd.  (Muir.) 

If  chewed  habitually,  the  teeth  become  red. 

In  a  conspicuous  place,  if  dining  at  an  infantry 
mess,  will  be  seen  displayed  the  colors  of  the  battalion. 

(Englishman.) 

It  was  while  revolving  these  pleasing  reflections  in 
my  mind,  that  our  friend  Delorme  walked  across  the 
stage  in  the  fourth  act.  ...         (T.  B.  Aldrich.)  l 

1  In  the  "  Ponkapog  Papers  "  he  speaks  of  "  the  usual  amusing  sole- 
cism :  '  As  one  of  the  most  famous  of  American  authors,  I  would  like 
to  possess  your  autograph.'"  Is  this  much  more  absurd  than  his 
own  words,  quoted  above? 

35 


36  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

The  influence  of  the  Southern  states  in  the  national 
politics  was  due  mainly  to  the  fact  of  their  having  a 
single  interest  on  which  they  were  all  united,  and, 
though  fond  of  contrasting  their  more  chivalric  char- 
acter with  the  commercial  spirit  of  the  North,  it  will 
*S  i  be  found  that  profit  has  been  the  motive  to  all  the 
*jf\j*   J  encroachments  of  slavery.  (Lowell.) 

A{  So  far,  I  have  not  said  that  any  of  the  common- 

place "abridgments"  quoted  above  are  wrong. 
What  I  do  affirm  is  (1)  that  on  general  principles 
a  speaker  or  writer  should  express  what  he  has  to 
say  —  not  leave  it  for  "the  other  fellow"  to  infer 
his  meaning  or  guess  at  it ;    (2)  that  the  form  of 


a  sentence  should  not  imply  that  crows  jvere 
"camped  by  the  boma",  or  honey  birds  on.  the 
'Nzoi ;  (3)  that,  if  any  structural  part  of  a  sen- 
tence  is  omitted,  the  sentence  should  be  so  framed 
as  to  show  plainly  what  isjomitted ;  (4)  that  the 
slovenly,  or  indolent,  or  insolent  habit  of  not 
taking  the  trouble  to  express  one's  meaning  in 
proper  form  tends  to  degrade  our  speech  from  the 
high  level  to  which  many  ages  of  civilized  inter- 
course  have  raised  it,  towards  the  grunt  and 
grimace  and  unorganized  Tangling**  r>f  fbf  l™»^g* 
savages-  ^The  presumption  is  always  in  favor 
of  fulness  z\pJ  pl{\jpnf>R% 

Some   of    the   ruder   forms    of    utterance    are 


MY  ABRIDGMENTS  37 

idiomatic  and  racy  —  they  belong  to  the  swift, 
hard-hitting  speech  of  the  people.  But  the  ellipti- 
cal forms  I  have  been  quoting  do  not  appear  in 
the  speech  of  the  plain  people  —  nor,  I  think, 
in  the  easy  conversation  of  the  more  scholarly. 
They  are  artificial  and  bookish  and  weak.  Lan- 
guage may  bejorcible  by  completeness,  as  really, 
as  by  condensation.  It  then  conveys  the  perfect 
thought,  and  the  mind  is  not  distracted  from  the 
thought  by  having  to  supplement  the  expression. 

It  is  freely  admitted  that  men  of  much  literature, 
like  Mr.  Gilder  and  our  scholarly  President  Wilson, 
have  made  frequent  use  of  these  abridgments.  For 
any  who  would  go  by  the  usage  of  their  "betters", 
regardless  of  its  intrinsic  merit,  there  is  no  lack  of 
usage  to  go  by.     Make  the  most  of  it. 

I  have  reserved  a  few  quotations  along  this 
line  which  especially  interest  me.  From  "The 
Winning  of  the  West"  comes  the  sentence,  "While 
suffering  from  his  wound,  Howe  disbanded  the 
rifle  corps."  But  it  was  Ferguson,  not  Howe, 
that  had  been  wounded !  I  am  sorry  I  cannot 
give  due  credit  for  "It  is  said  that  President 
Faure  opposed  this  action,  and  reports  are  current 
that  if  carried  out  he  will  resign."  I  should 
think  he  would.     A  great  dramatic  critic  writes 


38  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

of  "Cooper,  who  died  in  1851,  when  aged  62." 
Think  of  saying  that !  Our  most  prominent 
writer  on  naval  affairs  puts  it  that  "Either  of  our 
divisions,  therefore,  was  capable  of  blockading 
him,  if  caught  in  port;  and  it  was  no  more  than 
just  to  us  to  infer  that,  when  once  thus  cornered, 
we  should  .  .  .  assemble  both  divisions  .  .  ." 
With  the  reader  who  likes  that,  I  am  not  arguing. 
To  a  distinguished  professor-diplomat  I  am  in- 
debted for  this  sentence:  'When  this  regularity 
and  proportion  are  violated,  surprise  is  awakened, 
and,  if  trivial,  the  detection  of  the  incongruity 
awakens  the  emotion  of  the  ludicrous."  "Very 
like";  at  any  rate  the  learned  writer's  statement 
has  awakened  "the  emotion  of  the  ludicrous." 
The  following  statement  is  "amusing"  as  well 
as   ' '  unconscious ' ' : 

He  [Mr.  Straus]  is  a  Jew  by  birth  and  faith,  and  yet, 
when  nominated  by  an  amusing  and  unconscious 
irony,  the  convention  burst  into  singing  "Onward, 
Christian  Soldiers  ..." 

When  a  great  writer  is  thus  helped  out  by  a  gifted 
proof-reader,  "it  is  to  laugh." 

In  most  of  the  cases  here  considered,  the 
abridged  clause  consists,  in  skeleton,  of  a  conjunc- 
tion and  a  participle.     Participles  are  extensively 


MY  ABRIDGMENTS  39 

used  without  the  conjunction,  where  a  clause 
would  give  the  same  general  sense.  For  example, 
Mr.  Thomas  Hardy's  sentence,  "Suffering  great 
anguish  at  this  disloyalty  .  .  .  yet  disposed  to 
persevere  in  it,  a  horribly  cruel  thought  crossed 
his  mind",  might  begin  with  the  words  While 
he  was.  1  shall  therefore  consider  in  this  chapter 
what  Icall  thtTyredicate  yarticiyle. 

From  young  K.  H.  Dana's  "Two  Years  Before 
the  Mast":  "The  Easter  holidays  are  kept  up 
on  shore  for  three  days;  and,  being  a  Catholic 
vessel,  her  crew  had  the  advantage  of  them." 
"Her  crew",  then,  were  "a  Catholic  vessel." 
One  writer  makes  his  sentence  mean,  grammati- 
cally considered,  that  the  burdens  and  cares  of 
aristocracy  had  never  been  educated  for  the 
throne;  another,  that  communities  are  a  new 
science;  Dana,  again,  that  the  Italian  language 
sailed  out  of  Genoa,  and  that  the  owner  of  a 
badly  damaged  saddle  was  "capable  of  repair." 
A  college  boy  may  write  a  classic  story  of  the  sea, 
yet  can  hardly  be  expected  to  avoid  the  errors 
into  which  trained  writers  are  so  prone  to  fall. 
"Mentioning  frijoles,  ...  he  went  off  to  another 
building  ..."  But  it  was  the  hungry  Dana, 
not  the  Mexican,  that  had  mentioned  frijoles. 


40  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

Mr.  John  Masefield :  "Standing  up  hurriedly, 
the  water  rose  above  his  boots.  Looking  up, 
an  opening  in  the  clouds  showed  him  the  moon, 
a  beaten  swimmer  in  a  mill-race."  The  water 
stood  up  hurriedly,  and  an  opening  in  the  clouds 
looked  up.  "But  being  resolved  to  be  a  mis- 
sionary somewhere,"  says  the  author  of  "Among 
Friends",  "this  determined  the  place."  In  Mr. 
John  Graham  Brooks's  "As  Others  See  Us",  I 
read  of  "a  gift  .  .  .  which  carries  its  happy 
possessor  through  every  vexation  of  the  journey, 
apparently  without  discerning  that  anybody  has 
bad  manners."  Here  we  have  a  verbal  noun 
instead  of  a  participle,  but  the  same  old  confusion. 

"Having  returned  his  commission  into  the 
hands  of  the  President,  that  official  thanked  him  " 
is  a  pretty  good  illustration  of  the  kind  of  sentence 
that  will  not  stand  alone.  "Combined  with 
mechanical  ability  of  an  unusual  degree,  he  was 
an  all-round  musician."  This  is  an  extreme  case, 
in  that  there  is  no  word  in  the  sentence  with  which, 
even  if  ours  were  an  inflected  language,  the 
participle  could  properly  be  made  to  agree. 
"Lord  Dennis  had  seen  .  .  .  many,  too,  the 
light  of  whose  eyes  had  faded  behind  the  shutters 
of  that  house,   having  drawn  a  blank."     I  am 


MY  ABRIDGMENTS  41 

very  sorry  that  I  cannot  give  due  credit  for  this 
little  masterpiece. 

A  foreign  scholar,  not  very  long  in  this  country, 
wrote,  "Even  taken  as  a  guess  as  to  what  I  am 
going  to  do  your  reporter  is  mistaken.'*  In  view 
of  the  stuff  that  some  of  our  native  scholars 
write,  a  learned  Dutchman  can  be  forgiven  for 
supposing  that  the  sentence  quoted  is  English. 
Perhaps  that  reporter  might  very  well  be  "taken 
as  a  guess."  "Having  readily  obtained  informa- 
tion from  him  as  to  the  barracks  near  by,  we 
carried  the  conversation  a  little  further."  Thus 
Colonel  Higginson;  but  there  were  only  two 
persons  —  Higginson  and  his  informant. 

The  following  is  from  Mr.  George  Meredith's 
"Evan  Harrington"  : 

We  have  been  educated  in  a  theory,  that  when  you  ? 
lead  off  with  the  bow,  the  order  of  nature  is  reversed, 
and  it  is  no  wonder  therefore,  that,  having  stripped  us 
of  one  attribute,  our  fine  feathers  moult,  and  the  ma- 
jestic cock-like  march  which  distinguishes  us  degen- 
erates. 

There  may  be  readers  who  like  Meredith  so  well 
as  to  like  that  English  —  of  which  he  could  hardly 
have  been  guilty  in  conversation.  How  much 
better  is  our  speech  than  our  "literature"  !    With 


42  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

all  its  superficial  faults,  unstudied  talk  has  both 
ease  and  force;  and  it  has  clearness,  too,  after 
its  fashion.  Moreover  how  perfectly  distributed 
is  the  emphasis,  how  just  the  inflections,  how 
masterly  the  management  of  pitch  and  cadence! 
We  can  all  talk  —  if  we  have  anything  to  say,  we 
can  talk  well. 


VIII 

COMPARISONS  ARE  ODOROUS 


I  once  read  in  the  Ladies'  Home  Journal  that 
"Corn  may  be  salted  in  a  keg  similar  to  the 
manner  of  salting  cucumbers."  The  "fair  au- 
thoress" meant  well.  So  did  William  Black, 
when  he  wrote  of  certain  persons  ".  .  .  as  like 
each  other  in  brain,  costume,  and  manner  as 
the  wine-glasses  before  them."  Walter  Bagehot 
writes  of  "the  level  of  honesty  in  legitimate  busi- 
ness, as  compared  with  other  commercial  nations 
of  the  present  day."  "This  was  a  temperance 
ship,"  says  the  boy  Dana,  "...  and,  like  too 
many  such  ships,  the  temperance  was  all  in  the 
forecastle."  I  will  not  waste  criticism  on  the 
following,  from  writers  of  experience : 

Compared  with  what  he  has  experienced  in  America, 
Spain  is  a  backward  province.     (Poultney  Bigelow.) 

Their  step  was  not  as  steady,  nor  their  files  as 
straight,  as  Company  A.  (Winston  Churchill.) 

43 


44  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

Like  his  master,  he  turned  from  beauty  to  life  .  .  . 
but  unlike  him,  his  aesthetic  revolt  was  complicated 
neither  by  spiritual  mysticism,  nor  by  conservative 
instincts.  (Prof.  Vida  D.  Scudder.) 

Like  other  solitary  lives,  his  chief  happiness  was  in 
his  friendships.  (Mrs.  Phelps  Ward.) 

There  was,  however,  hardly  a  corner  of  England 
where  orations  on  behalf  of  peace  had  a  poorer  chance 
than  the  Bucklandbury  division. 

(John  Galsworthy.) 

Just  as  Dr.  Johnson  said  about  writing,  that  no 
man  was  ever  written  down  but  by  himself,  so  we  are 
the  victims  not  of  circumstances  but  of  disposition. 

(Benson.) 

A  multitude  of  forms  equal  to  Rubens  in  variety 
and  facility  of  design.  (Mrs.  Humphry  Ward.) 

Many  panics  such  as  1873  and  1893. 

(Brooks  Adams.) 

A  rate  of  speed  much  superior  to  the  more  dis- 
tinctly fighting  ships.  (Mahan.) 

The  reader  may  possibly  think  that  some  of 
these  expressions  are  defensible,  but  I  suppose  he 
will  admit  that  it  would  be  easy  to  rid  each  one 
of  the  defect  which  invites  criticism-. 

I  think  most  readers  will  agree  with  me  if  I 
say  that  in  each  of  the  following  cases  the  slight 
change  indicated  in  brackets  would  either  partly 
or  wholly  do  away  with  a  fault : 


COMPARISONS  ARE  ODOROUS  45 

...  to  know  in  what  respect  the  Shakespearean 
sonnets  differ  from  those  of  Milton,  and  his  again  from 
Keats  or  Rossetti  [from  Milton's  .  .  .  from  those  of 
K.  or  R.]. 

.  .  .  there  is  no  better  means  than  hy  intelli- 
gent  books  of  travel  to  free  the  mind  from  the  intol- 
erance that  belongs  to  it  by  nature.  .  .  .  [Delete  first 
"by."] 

Lucretius,  too,  had  great  poetical  genius;  but  his 
work  evinces  that  his  miserable  philosophy  was  rather 
the  result  of  a  bewildered  judgment  than  a  corrupt. 
[Put  the  "rather"  after  "judgment."] 

How  much  greater  is  our  nation  in  poetry  than  [in] 
prose !  — 

This  was  due,  not  so  much  merely  to  lack  of  har- 
mony between  the  two  sets  of  professors,  as  between 
the  Greeks  and  Germans  in  general.  [Put  the  "not 
so  much  merely"  after  "harmony",  and  punctuate 
accordingly.] 

We  love  and  respect  a  man  for  infinitely  more  than 
for  what  he  is  now.     [Delete  the  second  "for."] 

I  have  just  been  quoting  from  eminent  writers ; 
no  wonder  if  the  New- York  World  printed  the 
following : 

The  Secretary  says  that  at  a  conservative  estimate 
the  expense  per  effective  rifle  man  in  the  United  States 
Army  is  between  two  and  five  times  as  much  as  any 
first  class  power  on  the  continent  of  Europe. 


46  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

If  "the  Secretary  says"  such  ridiculous  things, 
he  sins  in  very  good  company.  The  "authoress" 
of  a  book  on  American  Literature  in  which  I 
find  the  sentence  "Like  Puritanism  in  New  Eng- 
land and  Presbyterianism  in  Scotland,  a  develop- 
ment of  worldly  shrewdness  ran  parallel  with 
spirituality"  is  a  college  professor,  and  should  be 
a  painstaking  writer.  From  "The  Appreciation 
of  Literature"  (George  E.  Woodberry),  I  quote: 

The  experience  of  a  great  love  is  the  most  trans- 
forming power  in  life,  and  hence  no  type  of  story  is  so 
constant,  so  sure  of  interest,  or  so  valuable. 

The  author  has  a  certain  "type  of  story"  in  mind, 
but  there  is  in  the  context  no  mention  of  it ;  hence 
the  comparison  fails.  A  well-known  reviewer  has 
the  paragraph : 

Unlike  Lord  Rossmore's  book  there  is  not  a  ques- 
tionable anecdote  in  Dr.  Hosmer's  pages,  and  yet  it 
is  a  very  entertaining  record.  .    « 

I  copy  from  an  excellent  article  in  the  Atlantic: 

But  the  rulings  which  they  thus  developed  were, 
perhaps,  more  regarding  details  than  principles,  more 
touching  manners  than  morals. 

This  is  quite  natural.  They  had  more  to  do  wit],i 
details  than  with  principles.  They  were  expected  to 
be  more  conversant  with  manners  than  with  morals. 

(Elizabeth  Woodbridge.) 


COMPARISONS  ARE  ODOROUS  47 

The  writer  shows  in  the  last  two  sentences  that 
she  is  not  averse  to  repeating  a  preposition.  In 
the  first  sentence  the  two  participles,  really  prepo- 
sitions as  used  here,  could  not  be  repeated  with 
the  same  effect  of  ease  that  is  given  by  the  repeti- 
tion of  the  musical  little  word  "with."  But  why 
should  not  the  sentence  have  taken  a  different 
form  ?  It  might  have  read,  But  the  rulings  which 
they  thus  developed  perhaps  regarded  details  more 
than  principles,  touched  manners  more  than  morals. 
There  is  ellipsis  here,  of  course;  but  an  ellipsis, 
I  believe,  which  is  justified  not  only  by  usage  but 
by  good  sense. 

Specimens  accumulate  on  my  hands.  I  am 
content  that  the  reader  should  pass  judgment 
for  himself.: 


To  be  told  that  we  ought  not  to  agitate  the  ques- 
tion~of  slavery,  when  it  is  that  which  is  forever  agitat- 
ing us,  is  like  telling  a  man  with  the  fever  and  ague  on 
him  to  stop  shaking,  and  he  will  be  cured.       (Lowell.) 

.  .  .  making  the  room  appear  more  like  the  chapel 
of  a  wonder-working  saint  than  a  prince's  closet. 

(Mrs.  Edith  Wharton.) 

It  would  be  absurd  to  compare  the  words  and 
actions  of  Tolstoy  with  the  great  names  already  cited, 
were  it  not  that  the  Russian  novelist  is  a  true  spokes- 
man of  certain  tendencies  of  the  age.  (More.) 


48  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

By  so  doing  he  did  what  he  could  to  give  to  the  war 
a  character  far  higher  even  than  a  war  of  patriotism. 

(John  T.  Morse,  Jr.) 

The  black  eyes  and  transparently  white  complexions 
of  the  Greek  ladies  .  .  .  contrast  strangely  with  the 
fair  women  of  many  countries.  .  .  .         (Crawford.) 


IX 

COMPARISON  AND  COORDINATION 


i«- 


;More  than  any  man  in  all  Venice."  Yet 
was  not  Gratiano  a  Venetian?  Sure,1  he  could 
not  speak  more  of  "nothing"  than  the  "infinite 
deal"  that  Gratiano  spake!  Well,  Bassanio's 
reckless  speech  is  quite  in  character.  Shakspere's 
men  and  women  do  not  talk  book,  like  Fenimore 
Cooper's;  for  Shakspere  recked  his  own  rede, 
and  held  the  mirror  up  to  nature.  But  we,  little 
men,  write  solemn  nonsense  in  our  own  persons, 
without  excuse  or  warrant.  Colonel  Higginson's 
beautiful  words,  "...  whose  deep,  rich  voice 
had  in  it  more  of  mellow  benignity  than  any  voice 
I  ever  yet  heard,"  are  of  course  illogical.  "Theo- 
dore Parker,  who  saw  these  issues  more  clearly 
than  any  man."  But  not  even  a  Unitarian 
divine  would  exalt  that  son  of  thunder  to  be  more 
than  man.     "R.  H.  Hutton,  who  probably  exer- 

1  With  this  context,  I  may  follow  Shakspere's  usage  ! 

49 


50  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

cised  more  power  .  .  .  than  any  man  outside 
the  cabinet."  (Arnold  White.)  Going  outside 
the  sentence,  we  conclude  that  Hutton  was  not 
in  the  cabinet.  I  need  not  quote  Bagehot,  and 
I  mark  with  an  "O"  (left  over)  more  than  one 
apposite  quotation  from  Mr.  Gilder's  "Grover 
Cleveland,  a  Record  of  Friendship",  and  one  each 
from  Mr.  Bliss  Perry  and  Mr.  H.  M.  Alden. 

The  opposite  error :  Charles  Eliot  Norton  is 
quoted  in  a  book  advertisement  as  saying  that 
"No  other  man  of  the  country  has  done  more  to 
advance  historical  studies."  The  word  I  have 
put  in  italics  shows  that  even  so  fine  a  scholar 
may  be  off  his  guard ;  this,  of  course,  on  the 
assumption  that  Norton  is  correctly  quoted,  and 
that  he  preferred  to  speak  rationally.  "It  is 
a  subject  which  of  all  others  touches  us  most 
nearly"  may  properly  be  printed  here.  Yes,  we 
all  know  —  Milton  did  it !  Any  man  who  can 
write  a  Paradise  Lost  shall  be  free  to  do  it. 

There  is  no  lack  of  guides  for  those  who  would 
steer  a  true  course  through  the  wilderness  of 
English.  A  periodical  named  Correct  English 
informs  us  that  "The  adjective  ' other '  is  required " 
in  the  sentence,  "No  writer  ever  possessed  a  more 
individual  and  forceful  style  .  .  .  than  Carlyle." 


COMPARISON  AND  COORDINATION      51 

The  same  publication  gives  "Rule  2",  beginning, 
"When  two  or  more  nouns  following  each  other 
.  .  .",  and  says  that  "Cosmopolite  means  a  person 
equally  at  home  any  place  in  the  world  ..." 

If  we  turn  back  to  Chapter  VIII,  we  see  that 
"a  keg"  cannot  well  be  compared  with  "the 
manner  of  salting  cucumbers",  nor,  in  respect 
to  "brain,  costume,  and  manner",  "certain  per- 
sons" with  "wine-glasses",  nor  "the  level  of 
honesty"  with  "other  commercial  nations",  nor 
"ships"  with  "temperance",  nor  experience  with 
"Spain."  Things  compared  must  have  some 
kind  of  mutual  correspondence  in  respect  to 
actual  or  conceivable  qualities,  characteristics, 
etc.  And  if,  e.g.,  qualities  are  compared,  there 
ought  to  be  as  many  as  two  of  them.  We  have 
seen  in  cases  actually  experimented  upon  that  a 
bad  comparison  can  be  made  good,  or  at  least 
made  less  bad,  by  bringing  about  a  rational 
correspondence  in  form  between  the  expressions 
on  which  the  comparison  depends.  In  dealing 
with  cases  of  bad  coordination  we  likewise  find 
the  remedy  to  lie  in  effecting  a  proper  correspond- 
ence; hence  I  deal  in  this  connection  with  Co- 
ordinations. 

Newman   has,    "...  it   follows   that   on   the 


52  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

one  hand  they  [sciences]  need  external  assistance, 
one  by  one,  by  reason  of  their  incompleteness, 
and  on  the  other  that  they  are  able  to  afford  it 
to  each  other  ..."  The  mere  correction  of  such 
work  is  a  very  rudimentary  business.  The  in- 
quiry whether  or  not  Newman  would  have  seri- 
ously defended  his  confusion  —  whether  he  really 
intended  it  —  is  more  difficult.  I  can  see  noth- 
ing gained  by  it  sufficient  to  outweigh  the  loss. 
He  says  somewhere  that  "A  poetical  mind  is 
often  too  impatient  to  express  itself  justly!" 
I  suppose  the  author  of  "Lead,  kindly  light" 
had  a  poetical  mind. 

The  good  divinity-school  professor  who  writes 
that  ".  .  .  educators  vacillate  vaguely  between 
trying  to  turn  out  moral  boys  and  girls  and  suc- 
cessful beasts  of  prey"  is  not  a  careful  writer, 
and  probably  does  not  pretend  to  be.  "I  want 
to  learn",  says  Mr.  Benson,  "to  distinguish  be- 
tween what  is  important  and  unimportant,  be- 
tween what  is  beautiful  and  ugly,  between  what 
is  true  and  false."  To  the  British  academic 
mind  the  workmanlike  construction  of  sentences 
may  seem  "unimportant",  even  as  to  some 
American  minds  certain  widely-read  essays  seem 
unimportant.     Be  that  as  it  may,  it  is  impossible 


COMPARISON  AND  COORDINATION     53 

to   distinguish   between   "what  is  beautiful  and 
ugly",  or  "between"  any  other  one  thing. 

Mr.  Morse,  in  "...  the  Republicans  soon 
developed  a  strength  beyond  what  had  been 
expected  and  which  put  the  Democrats  to  their 
best  exertions  ",  coordinates  a  relative  clause  with 
a  prepositional  phrase.  Mr,  Hopkinson  Smith 
has  an  inelegant  coordination  in  "  .  .  .  certain 
and  it  is  to  be  hoped  unrecorded  bursts  of  pro- 
fanity." Meredith's  "...  apostrophized  by 
herself,  her  sister,  and  daughter"  is  awkward. 
He  may  have  preferred  to  have  it  awkward. 
Having  lost  my  documentary  evidence,  I  will  not 
name  the  author  of  "The  game  licked  it,  as  well 
as  coming  to  water." 

The  plucky  young  Dana  might  be  forgiven 
for  "Some  persons  we  see  under  no  remarkable 
circumstances,  but  whom,  for  some  reason  or 
another,  we  never  forget";  but  from  our  leading 
comic  paper  we  expect  at  least  better  English 
than  "Neither  the  army  nor  the  public  desired 
to  see  Captain  Cutter  convicted,  but  would  have 
much  preferred  to  see  him  cleared."  That  is 
quite  bad  enough  for  a  congressman.  Like  it 
is  a  bit  from  Carlyle :  "  .  .  .no  Truth  or  Good- 
ness realised  by  man  ever  dies,  or  can  die;    but 


54  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

is  all  still  here  ..."  Mr.  Ho  wells,  it  seems, 
can  write  as  badly  as  Carlyle,  when  he  gives  his 
mind  to  it:  "But  she  remembered  an  abolition 
visitor  of  whom  none  of  them  made  fun,  but 
treated  with  serious  distinction  and  regard  ..." 

Claudite  jam  rivos,  pueri,  sat  prata  biberunt. 


CORRESPONDENTS 

In  a  good  book  on  Rhetoric,  fifteen  years  old, 
I  find  mention  of  "the  rule  that  connectives  of 
the  class  known  to  grammarians  as  'correspond- 
ents'—  such  as  not  only,  but  also;  either,  or; 
neither,  nor ;  both,  and;  on  the  one  hand,  on  the  other 
hand  —  should  be  so  placed  as  to  show  what 
words  they  connect."  Of  four  dictionaries  con- 
sulted, only  the  "International"  mentions  this 
use  of  the  word  correspondents ;  but  the  term  is 
a  convenient  one,  and  I  have  no  hesitation  in 
following  A.  S.  Hill  and  "Webster." 

Under  both,  my  dictionary  says,  "used  before 
two  or  more  coordinate  words  or  phrases  taken 
or  considered  inclusively,  connected  by  and 
expressed  or  understood."  Notwithstanding  Mil- 
ton's authority,  passages  in  Chaucer  and  Gold- 
smith, occasional  present  usage,  and  the  fact  that  it 
is  very  convenient  to  use  both  .  .  .  and  .  .  .  and 

55 


56  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

like  et  .  .  .  et  .  .  .  et,  I  find  it  so  absurd  to 
write  both  followed  by  more  than  two  coordinate 
expressions  that  I  think  we  should  try  to  avoid 
so  doing.  It  is  a  curious  fact  that  several  dic- 
tionaries specify  "words  or  phrases",  when  both 
may  with  perfect  propriety  be  used  also  before 
two  coordinate  clauses.  E.g.,  He  came  both  be- 
cause it  was  a  pleasure  and  because  he  believed  it 
to  be  his  duty. 

In  such  an  expression  as  both  in  thought  and 
action,  the  word  action  can  hardly  be  said  to  be 
coordinate  with  the  phrase  in  thought.  We  shall 
see  that  locutions  of  this  kind  are  very  common, 
even  in  the  work  of  good  writers.  Postponing 
the  question  whether  or  not  strict  coordination 
should  be  insisted  on,  I  exhibit  first  some  uses 
of  the  "correspondents"  that  are  certainly  objec- 
tionable. 

Mr.  Birrell  shall  have  the  honor  of  coming 
first: 

Of  English  poets  it  may  be  said  generally  they  are 
either  born  in  London  or  remote  country  places. 

It  would  be  quite  safe  to  say  of  poets  or  any  other 
persons  (1)  that  they  are  either  born  in  London 
or  born  somewhere  else,  or  (2)  that  they  are  born 


CORRESPONDENTS  57 

either  in  London  or  somewhere  else  —  e.g.,  in 
remote  country  places.  There  is  a  great  deal  of 
usage,  it  must  be  admitted,  to  support  one  in 
saying  (3)  that  they  are  born  either  in  London 
or  remote  country  places.  The  brilliant  Birrell's 
way  of  putting  it  (4)  may  be  "safe",  but  is  hardly 
sane;  and  after  "generally"  there  should  be 
either  a  comma  or  a  conjunction.  From  a  book 
on  Rhetoric,  written  by  a  scholar  whose  name 
(D.  J.  Hill)  should  give  it  a  good  deal  of  authority  : 

Avoid  all  foreign  words,  unless  they  have  been 
naturalized.  This  includes  both  words  from  the 
ancient  and  modern  languages. 

Here  we  have  the  same  kind  of  irregularity  :  there 
is  nothing  coordinate  with  the  second  "words"; 
if  "both"  were  put  after  "words",  still  there 
would  be  nothing  coordinate  with  "from  the 
ancient."  And  why  not  the  modern,  as  well  as 
"  the  ancient  "  ?  Good  advice  to  a  young  writer : 
Avoid  imitating  the  English  of  specialists  in 
rhetoric  or  in  anything  else. 

The  "statesman"  who  said  "...  he  was 
forewarned  by  both  Mr.  Underwood  and  by 
myself",  not  fearing  to  repeat  the  preposition, 
was  perhaps  the  author  of  "we  pulled  him  out 


58  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

of  the  hole  in  the  Sixty-first  Congress",  and  of 
"either  the  Sixty-first  or  the  Sixty-second  Con- 
gresses." Professor  Brander  Matthews,  too,  does 
not  fear  to  repeat  the  preposition,  and  his  Eng- 
lish matches  the  statesman's:  "...  they  are 
likely  to  come  into  frequent  collision  with  both 
the  business  man  who  wants  the  evil  condition 
remedied  in  a  hurry  and  with  the  professional 
politician  ..."  Compare  Lowell's  "The  society 
is  reduced  to  the  dilemma  of  either  denying 
that  the  African  has  a  soul  to  be  saved,  or 
of  consenting  ..."  I  could  cite  many  pas- 
sages from  Lowell  in  which  the  coordination  is 
imperfect. 

"They  spared  neither  the  wounded  nor  recog- 
nized the  Red  Cross"  speaks  for  itself.  So  does 
"  Neither  Miles,  Eagan,  Shafter  or  Corbin  are 
West  Pointers."  "Their  authority,  both  as  re- 
gards the  reception  or  rejection  of  locutions  of 
any  sort,  is  final"  (Lounsbury)  is  a  sentence  which 
I  suppose  would  require  the  support  of  high 
"authority"  to  make  it  pass  as  English.  One  of 
the  prophets  of  our  time  has  these  sentences : 

But  surely  the  shout  of  triumph  hailing  that  event 
was  not  expressive  either  of  political  indifference  nor 
political  loyalty. 


CORRESPONDENTS  59 

He  would  have  a  surplus  with  God,  with  which  he 
could  either  pay  up  the  debts  contracted  through 
former  sins  or  which  he  could  turn  over  to  the  general 
treasure  of  merit  on  which  the  weak  and  sinful  could 
bank. 

A  bright  college  professor  who,  it  is  to  be  assumed, 
knows  better  than  she  writes : 

Neither  Bulwer  nor  Trollope  nor  Reade  nor  Wilkie 
Collins  evolved  nor  discovered  a  hero. 

Neither  poetry  nor  prose  draws  its  social  passion 
from  her  inspiration,  nor  solves  its  social  problems 
through  her  aid. 

"Physical  facts",  wrote  William  James,  "simply 
are  or  are  not ;  and  neither  when  present  or 
absent,  can  they  be  supposed  to  make  de- 
mands." 

Mr.  Cooper  says  "both  on  its  technical  and 
its  artistic  side,"  but  also,  "both  in  my  own 
case  and  in  that  of  other  writers."  He  has 
"work  that  not  only  meant  drudgery  but  that 
took  us  away  from  bigger  and  finer  things"; 
and  "...  that  have  either  never  been  set  down 
on  paper  at  all  or  else  have  gone  speedily  into 
the  scrap-basket";  and  he  quotes  from  Steven- 
son, "I  would  either  read,  or  a  pencil  and  a  penny 
version-book  would  be  in  my  hand."     I  do  not 


60  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

mean  that  all  these  are  equally  bad,  or  are  neces- 
sarily bad  at  all.  I  am  exhibiting  usage.  From 
three  good  writers  of  the  present  time  I  quote 
"both  of  the  gay  Latin  races  and  the  sad  Teu- 
tonic", "the  drama  neither  of  knight  nor  monk", 
"whether  in  a  contemporary  or  historical  range", 
"whether  in  the  sphere  of  manners  or  history", 
"whether  in  the  form  of  practical  action  or 
of  moral  precept."  From  Professor  Lounsbury : 
"...  sharing  neither  in  its  thoughts,  its  desires, 
nor  its  acquisitions";  'They  know  what  they 
need;  and  they  can  neither  be  persuaded  out  of 
it  nor  bullied  out  of  it";  "It  hardly  needs  to 
be  said  that  'the  man  in  the  street'  is  not  only 
no  director  of  usage,  but  that  he  has  no  direct 
influence  upon  the  preservation  of  the  life  of  any 
word  or  phrase." 

Of  the  quotations  yet  to  be  given,  some,  at 
least,  have  weight  as  bearing  on  the  question  of 
usage.     Matthew  Arnold : 

Those  who  deny  this,  either  think  so  poorly  of  the 
State  ...  or  they  think  so  poorly  of  religion  .  .  . 

Characteristically  enough,  Arnold  does  not  omit 
anything  —  he  uses  a  (grammatically)  superfluous 
pronoun.     Andrew  Lang : 


CORRESPONDENTS  61 

But  such  anecdotes  are  either  not  common,  or  are 
not  frequently  reported. 

William  James : 

.  .  .  that  not  only  ...  do  we  find  our  passional 
nature  influencing  us  in  our  opinions,  but  that  there 
ctrc  »  •  • 

.  .  .  neither  to  be  enjoyed  nor  understood. 

.  .  .  whether  to  whole  or  parts. 

Mrs.  Humphry  Ward : 

.  .  .  whether  as  upholstery  or  conversation. 
...  in    defiance    both    of   his    English    and    Irish 
creditors. 

Mr.  Birrell : 

But  still,  both  as  a  poet  and  a  man  we  must  give 
place,  and  even  high  place,  to  Pope. 

Walter  Pater : 

There  are  many  such  figures  both  in  Coleridge's 
prose  and  verse. 

Ruskin : 

.  .  .  which  can  neither  be  eaten  nor  breathed  .  .  . 
.  .  .  both  on  the  manufacture  and  the  sale  .  .  . 
.  .  .  expressive  both  of  velocity  and  power. 

I  find  similar  irregularities  in  the  work  of  New- 
man,   Van    Dyke,    Galsworthy,    Black,    Gilder, 


62  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

Chesterton,  McCarthy,  Dole,  Crothers,  Henry  B. 
Fuller,  Professor  Raleigh,  A.  C.  Benson,  Perry, 
Swinburne,  Fiske,  Mrs.  Wharton,  Allen,  Craw- 
ford, Mrs.  Riggs,  and  I  know  not  how  many 
others. 

I  have  read  through,  to  find  out  how  the  corre- 
spondents are  handled  in  it,  a  book  of  some  450 
pages,  containing,  with  introductory  matter  by 
a  competent  writer,  selections  from  the  best 
essays  of  Bacon,  Swift,  Addison,  Lamb,  De 
Quincey,  Carlyle,  Emerson,  Macaulay,  Ruskin, 
and  Matthew  Arnold.  It  is  not  easy  to  read 
such  prose  without  getting  interested;  and  per- 
haps I  did  not  so  master  my  attention  as  to  note 
every  case  in  which  the  correspondents  are  used. 
I  believe,  however,  that  my  totals  are  substantially 
correct.  No  case  noted  was  so  bad,  I  believe, 
as,  for  instance,  the  first  one  cited  in  this  chapter. 
In  the  introductory  matter,  the  regular  uses 
observed  were  to  the  irregular  as  one  to  three. 
For  the  main  text,  the  corresponding  ratio  is  of 
fourteen  to  nineteen  —  more  than  twice  as  great. 
Bacon  and  Swift  are  steadily  on  the  irregular 
side;  Macaulay  has  an  even  score,  Ruskin's  is 
practically  even,  and  Arnold  is  regular  every  time. 
It  is  perhaps  significant  that  for  Emerson  I  got 


CORRESPONDENTS  63 

no  figures,  one  way  or  the  other ;  and  for  Macau- 
lay,  De  Quincey,  and  Lamb,  almost  none.  This 
very  slight  investigation  proves  nothing ;  but 
its  results  harmonize  well  enough  with  the  con- 
clusions which  I  shall  modestly  set  down. 

With  respect  to  the  use  of  the  so-called  corre- 
spondents, what  is  the  standard  by  which  we 
should  judge  the  work  of  others,  and  to  which 
we  should  conform  in  our  own  writing  ? 

Considered  from  the  grammarian's  point  of 
view,  such  coordinations  as  the  following  are 
certainly  correct : 

Neither  here  nor  there ;  either  in  the  city  or  in  the 
country;  whether  by  little  or  by  much;  not  only 
according  to  law,  but  also  according  to  justice;  both 
because  I  feared  and  because  I  hoped. 

They  are  normal,  symmetrical,  complete,  and 
perfect  forms  of  expression.  "I  looked  neither 
forward  nor  back"  is  clearer  than  "I  neither  looked 
forward  nor  back."  "They  are  either  born  in  Lon- 
don or  remote  country  places"  is  harder  to  under- 
stand than  "they  are  born  either  in  London  or 
in  remote  country  places."  No  great  difference? 
There  is  no  great  difference  between  lifting  two 
pounds  and  lifting  one  pound  ;  but  I  will  not  have 
my    shoes    weighted    with    lead.     In    the    single 


64  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

and  simple  case,  no  great  difference ;  but  construct 
a  complicated  sentence  in  defiance  of  the  laws  of 
thought,  or  a  long  discourse  with  constant  dis- 
regard of  what  is  normal  in  structure  and  formally 
clear,  and  the  reader  will  be  wearied  and  repelled, 
unless  your  work  is  in  other  respects  so  good 
as  to  please  him  in  spite  of  your  slovenliness  — 
and  even  if  you  please  him,  very  likely  you  will 
have  failed  to  make  him  understand  you,  and 
thereby  to  persuade  or  convince  or  instruct  him 
as  you  would  wish  to  do. 

Now  it  is  generally  practicable  and  even  easy, 
provided  one  cares  to  do  so,  to  make  one's  coordi- 
nation correct  and  clear.  The  worker  in  words 
has  an  advantage  over  the  cabinet-maker.  The 
stuff  he  works  in  is  not  like  pine  and  mahogany. 
Experiment,  alter,  knock  to  pieces,  reconstruct 
or  throw  away  —  no  material  has  been  wasted 
or  spoiled.  The  only  expenditure  needed  here  is 
of  time  and  labor. 

At  this  point  two  objections  may  be  made. 
The  first  is  that  the  time  and  strength  of  our 
betters  are  too  valuable  to  be  wasted  in  finicky 
pottering  with  phrases.  Suppose  this  to  be  true : 
it  would  apply  to  a  few  writers  who  have  done,  or 
possibly  are  doing,  great  creative  work,  and  in 


CORRESPONDENTS  65 

some  measure  to  a  limited  number  whose  work, 
though  not  of  the  first  order,  is  good  enough  to 
last ;  and  a  multitude  who  write  for  the  million 
and  are  read  by  the  million,  and  whose  work 
affects  mightily  and  in  many  ways  the  thinking, 
the  moral  health,  the  conduct  of  the  million, 
would  remain  to  be  considered.  We  —  you  and 
I — should  remain  to  be  considered.  But  now 
about  the  greater  wits :  Some  of  them  have 
deemed  so  highly  of  form  and  finish  that  they 
have  put  infinite  labor  into  learning  their  trade, 
or  finishing  their  product,  or  both.  About  writers 
of  this  kind,  my  friend  in  the  opposition,  you 
need  not  worry.  I  spoke  of  learning  the  trade. 
Pace  Dogberry,  "to  write  and  read"  neither 
in  the  lower  nor  in  the  higher  sense  "comes  by 
nature."  The  great  wits  learn  to  write,  and 
they  learn  by  hard  work;  and  to  learn  a  little 
matter  like  what  we  are  speaking  of  in  this 
chapter  is  the  merest  trifle  to  any  one  who  is 
clever  enough  to  write  and  who  cares  to  learn. 

The  second  objection,  which  might  seem  to 
find  support  in  the  passage  from  De  Quincey 
quoted  in  my  third  chapter,  is  in  brief  that  pains- 
taking correctness  is  an  enemy  of  spontaneity. 
Now,    really,    such    objection    would    be    puerile 


66  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

were  it  not  put,  as  De  Quincey  very  properly 
puts  it,  in  carefully  guarded  language.  Can 
any  person  who  knows  the  least  thing  about 
serious  writing  object  to  revision?  And  can  any 
such  person  fail  to  see  that  spontaneity  comes 
in  the  first  draft ;  and  that  if  it  is  good  for  any- 
thing it  will  not  evaporate  under  the  process  of 
licking  the  first  draft  into  shape ;  and  that  if  it  is 
spontaneous  foolishness  the  cooler-headed  reviser 
will  rejoice  to  pitch  it  into  the  waste-basket ;  and 
that  the  pleasant  impersonal  work  of  getting  the 
detail  of  a  composition  into  shape  has  as  much 
to  do  with  the  quality  of  spontaneity  as  polishing 
up  "the  handle  of  the  big  front  door"  has  with 
the  architect's  happy  treatment  of  dormer  win- 
dows or  balconies ! 

The  conversational  style  of  a  thoroughly  culti- 
vated person  is  correct  and  easy.  So  far  forth, 
that  style  is  a  model  for  literature  of  every  grade ; 
which,  of  course,  may  be  and  should  be  more 
carefully  finished  in  both  respects.  I  am  now 
ready  to  set  down  some  conclusions  of  my  own 
with  reference  to  "Correspondents." 

1.  As  a  rule,  regular  coordination  is  safe. 

2.  Other  things  being  equal,  the  presumption 
is  always  strong  in  favor  of  regularity. 


CORRESPONDENTS  67 

3.  Provided,  always,  that  the  sense  be  clearly 
indicated,  if  regularity  in  any  given  case  would 
involve  sacrifice  of  ease,  it  need  not  be  insisted  on. 

4.  The  young  writer,  learning  his  business, 
should  stick  at  no  pains  that  will  enable  him  to 
avoid  irregularity  without  sacrificing  ease. 


XI 

THE  PRONOUN 

Thou  pale  and  common  drudge 

Scholars  ought  to  be  friendly  to  the  pronoun. 
So  long  as  we  can  point  with  pride  to  its  three 
cases,  let  no  man  say  that  English  is  "a  gram- 
marless  tongue"  !  For  me,  who  have  no  use  for 
"anyone"  and  the  like,  the  pronoun  is  mostly 
monosyllabic  —  a  fact  greatly  to  its  credit.  It 
is  a  very  convenient  and  "handy"  little  drudge; 
and  —  although  there  are  who  seem  to  find  great 
beauty  in  the  personal  pronouns  of  the  first 
person  —  it  is  "pale"  as  well  as  "common."  Its 
plainness  may  not  move  me  "more  than  elo- 
quence", but  when  it  (the  pronoun)  makes  the 
meaning  plain,  it  gives  solid  satisfaction.  It  is 
related  to  the  noun  somewhat  as  checks  to  money. 
If  the  noun  is  there,  like  cash  in  bank,  its  repre- 
sentative is  legitimately  useful.  If  I  can  find 
nothing  for  the  pronoun  to  represent,  I  decline 
to  indorse. 

68 


THE   PRONOUN  69 

This  small  part  of  speech  is  hard  worked,  at 
the  best.  Expected  to  convey  ideas  which  the 
user,  even  if  he  ever  had  them  clear  in  his  own 
head,  has  been  too  stupid  or  lazy  or  preoccupied 
to  indicate  in  the  context,  it  is  overworked  and 
misused.  The  writer  whose  pronouns  are  always 
right  is  pretty  sure  to  make  safe  English. 

An  American  Academician,  whose  progress 
through  the  English  language  makes  one  think  of 
a  bull  moose,  wishes  "to  state  with  all  emphasis 
that  nnjnan  who  takes  the  opposite  ground  to 
that  which  I  have  taken  .  .  .  has  any  right  to 
be  on  the  bench,  and  it  is  a  misfortune  to  have 
him  there."  Here  the  antecedent  of  "him"  is 
not  omitted  —  it  is  "no  man."  If  one  says  that 
any  man  .  .  .  has  no  right,  "any  man"  stands 
for  an  existent  person,  and  may  be  represented 
by  a  pronoun.  Although  "him"  evidently  can- 
not represent  "no  man",  it  may  be  said  that 
"man  who  takes  .  .  ."  is  the  antecedent;  but 
"no  man"  (Latin  nemo)  is  the  subject  just  as  in 
my  sentence  "any  man"  is  the  subject,  and  the 
subject  is  what  the  pronoun  should  have  as  its 
antecedent.  In  this  connection  I  will  quote  from 
a  young  sailor,  an  old  scholar,  a  great  art-critic, 
and  the  New- York  World : 


70  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

1.  No_ Protestant  has  any  political  rights,  nor  can 
he  hold  property.  (Dana.) 

2.  ...  no  one  spoke  of  any  probable  end  of  the 
voyage  ...  or  if  he  did  .  .  .  (Dana.) 

3.  How  far  these  injunctions  have  affected  the  prac- 
tice of  the  great  writers  of  the  last  hundred  years  no 
one  has  taken  the  pains  to  inform  us,  even  if  he  has 
informed  himself.  (Lounsbury.) 

4.  No  previous  work  of  the  nature,  so  far  as  I  can 
discover,  contained  even  an  allusion  to  the  locution 
under  discussion.     Their  compilers.  .  .  . 

(Lounsbury.) 

5.  .  .  .  few  people  have  had  the  opportunity  of  see- 
ing the  sea  at  such  a  time,  and  when  they  have,  can- 
not face  it.  (Ruskin.) 

6.  He  speaks  no  English  when  he  can  avoid  it.  • 

I  remark  first  upon  these  quotations  severally. 
There  are  at  least  three  easy  ways  in  which  "1." 
could  be  slightly  changed  so  that  there  need  be 
no  question  of  the  proper  use  of  pronouns.  "2.", 
also,  could  be  easily  changed  with  the  same  result. 
In  "3.",  the  last  clause  is  nearly  equivalent  to  a 
"conditional  relative"  clause  depending  on  "one", 
and  possibly  need  not  be  condemned.  I  see  no 
justification  for  the  use  of  "Their"  in  "4."  To 
say  nothing  just  now  of  the  negative  "No",  there 
is  no  antecedent  plural  to  justify  the  plural  pro- 


THE  PRONOUN  71 

noun.  In  "5.",  a  pronoun  they  for  subject  of 
"cannot"  would  perhaps  make  the  sentence 
better;  but  a  pronoun  so  used  ought  to  refer  to 
"few  people"  in  the  sense  in  which  that  expres- 
sion was  used  —  so  that  to  say  they  "cannot 
face  it"  would  be  too  much  like  saying  that 
few  people  cannot  face  it,  which  logically  implies 
that  the  great  majority  of  people  can  "face  it"  ! 
"6."  What  does  "it"  mean?  "English"?  No. 
Speaking  "no  English"?  No.  The  writer  means 
that  he  never  speaks  English  when  he  can  avoid  it  — 
i.e.,  can  avoid  speaking  English.  This  last  is 
approximately  rational.  A  word  more  about 
"4."  The  phrase  "of  the  nature"  does  not 
sound  like  English.  Of  the  hind  is  well  justified 
by  usage;  not  so,  I  think,  "of  the  nature."  The 
series  of  abstract  nouns  in  "an  allusion  to  the 
locution  under  discussion"  is  entirely  unneces- 
sary, and  it  is  neither  easy  nor  forcible.  Some 
of  the  young  sailor's  rattling,  racy  monosyllabic 
sentences  show  to  great  advantage  in  comparison 
with  such  language. 

What  are  we  to  say  in  general  of  sentences 
like  No  man  can  do  impossibilities,  and  he  is 
foolish  if  he  tries  ?  I  have  been  surprised  to  find 
that  I  had  so  few  of  these  in  my  collection ;  I  am 


72  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

glad  to  believe  that  the  better  class  of  writers 
avoid  the  inconsistency  we  are  considering.  If 
a  man  has  been  mentioned  in  the  near  context, 
and  without  lack  of  clearness  the  pronoun  he 
may  be  used  instead  of  repeating  the  noun,  the 
pronoun  is  right.  If  the  subject  of  the  sentence 
is  no  man,  to  represent  that  subject  by  he  is  on 
the  face  of  it  a  contradiction  of  terms.  It  is 
best  to  speak  and  write  logically  and  grammati- 
cally. The  burden  of  proof  is  upon  him  who 
holds  that  it  is  right  —  as  in  many  cases  it  may 
be  —  to  speak  and  write  otherwise.  The  ques- 
tion is  not  whether  an  anomalous  expression 
may  be  used,  but  whether  it  need  be  used.  It 
should  be  insisted  on  again  and  again  that  if 
two  forms  of  expression  are  both  open  to  criti- 
cism, the  chances  are  very  large  that  something 
else  would  be  better  than  either.  Begin  anew, 
and  hammer  out  for  yourself  a  sentence  to  which 
you  can  think  of  no  reasonable  objection.  So  a 
young  writer  learns  his  trade,  and  so  a  veteran 
keeps  his  style  fresh  and  clean. 

I  give  next  some  extracts  labeled  in  my  col- 
lection "  They  singular." 

The  true  gentleman  in  like  A    second    his    might    be 

manner      carefully      avoids      somewhat      objectionable  — 


THE   PRONOUN 


73 


whatever  may  cause  a  jar 
or  a  jolt  .  .  .  his  great  con- 
cern being  to  make  every  one 
at  their  ease  and  at  home. 
(Newman.) 

.  .  .  there  is  nothing  one 
would  more  desire  for  a  per- 
son or  a  document  one  greatly 
values  than  to  make  them  in- 
dependent of  miracles.  (Ar- 
nold.) 

Any  one  can  measure  with 
a  glance,  when  they  are  tired. 
(Ruskin.) 

No  person  could  have  told 
from  the  heavens,  by  their 
eyesight  alone,  that  it  was 
not  a  still  summer  night. 
(Dana.) 

"Anybody  might  see  that 
was  a  unnat'ral  creed." 
[Quoted  from  a  novel.] 

So  they  might.  (Agnes 
Repplier.) 

"Oh  God,  that  any  one 
should  put  an  enemy  in  their 
mouth  to  steal  away  their 
brains."  [Supposed  to  be 
quoted  from  Othello,  Act 
II,  Sc.  3.]  (Lord  Avebury ; 
better  known  as  Sir  John 
Lubbock.) 


not,  however,  on  account  of 
its  gender;  But  why  use  a 
pronoun  ?  If  not  at  ease  and 
at  home,  then  feel  at  ease  and 
at  home. 

Here  there  is  more  excuse 
for  the  plural  pronoun,  but  no 
sufficient  excuse.  Either  re- 
cast the  sentence,  or  write 
than  independence  of  miracles. 

One  should  avoid  writing 
when  "they  are"  too  "  tired" 
to  write  well. 

Not  the  eyesight  of  the 
heavens,  young  man  !  Delete 
"their."  Make  any  one  of 
several  easy  changes.  Make 
your  sentence  English. 

Trust  the  brilliant  Miss 
Repplier  to  work  out  a  better 
form  of  expression  —  if  she 
would. 


"O  that  men  should  put 
an  enemy  in  their  mouths  to 
steal  away  their  brains."  So 
it  reads  in  the  play.  The 
penitent  Cassio  speaks  the 
English  of  a  gentleman  ;  my 
lord's  memory  and  his  Eng- 
lish are  both  at  fault. 


Many  a  misused  "it"  awaits  us  under  Clear- 
ness.    A   few    instances    may    be    noticed    here. 


74  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

"Education  is  a  broad  term.  Only  a  small  part 
of  it  is  done  in  schools."  Is  it  hypercritical  to 
object  to  the  suggestion  of  a  small  part  of  a  broad 
term  ?  And  how  about  doing  education  ?  A  news- 
paper, speaking  of  "the  Wall  street  democrats", 
says  that  "with  the  aid  of  all  the  servile  agents 
of  plutocracy  it  did  its  best."  From  Mrs.  Hum- 
phry Ward  one  expects  better  things : 

She  could  make  a  daring  sally  or  reply ;  but  it  was 
still  the  raw  material  of  conversation;  it  wanted  ease 
and  polish.  And  she  was  evidently  conscious  of  it 
herself,  for  presently  her  cheek  flushed  and  her  manner 
wavered. 

Conscious  of  "a  daring  sally  or  reply"?  Miss 
Jane  Addams  has  it  that  "everybody  is  under 
obligations  to  his  alderman,  and  is  made  to  feel 
it";  and  is  in  the  good  company  of  Matthew 
Arnold,  who  says,  ".  .  .  we  are  so  notoriously 
deficient  in  everything  of  that  kind,  that  our 
adversaries  often  taunt  us  with  it." 

The  relative  pronoun  meets  with  hard  "usage" : 

The  past  few  days  has  witnessed  many  arrivals 
who  are  to  remain. 

This  deserves  attention.  We  will  not  quibble 
about   the   number   of   the   leading   verb.     The 


THE  PRONOUN  75 

"witnessed"  is  rather  in  the  "fine"  journalistic 
style,  but  let  that  pass.  The  way  "arrivals" 
is  made  to  look  both  ways  is  good.  Abstract 
and  concrete  at  once,  it  shows  the  power  of  lan- 
guage! A  bright  novelist  speaks  of  "a  garrison 
who  has  made  honorable  surrender"  ;  and  "who" 
looks  both  ways;  it  serves  as  who  and  which 
in  one.  Miss  Addams  has  the  same  use  in  "the 
large  manufacturing  company  who  desires",  etc. 
The  following  is  from  the  editor  of  an  English 
classic : 

The  characters  which  people  his  story  are  real,  and 
the  settings  what  he  saw,  and  a  large  part  of  which  he 
was. 

The  hackneyed  allusion  to  a  passage  in  the  second 
JSneid  is  brought  in  by  too  great  a  strain  upon 
syntax  and  style. 

It  is  no  easy  task  to  make  a  good  text-book. 
In  the  preface  to  a  "Practical  Rhetoric",  the 
third  sentence  begins,  "To  which  number  the 
present  volume  presumes  to  add  one  ..."  On 
page  204  the  author  says  that  "Nowadays  .  .  . 
the  relative  is  used  only  inside  the  sentence." 
This  must  mean,  I  suppose,  that  the  relative  is 
not  used  to  introduce  a  new  sentence.  But  in 
the  first   sentence   quoted,    "which"   introduces 


76  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

a  new  sentence.     Surely  the  professor  would  not 
quibble  over  the  position  of  the  word. 

Aldrich,  in  the  "  Ponkapog  Papers,"  speaks  of 
"five  sons,  the  second  of  which  sought  a  career 
in  London."  Professor  Shaler  says  that  "com- 
merce in  our  time  binds  lands  together  in  a  way 
which  it  did  not  of  old",  and  works  the  objective 
case,  I  think,  too  hard. 

She  .  .  .  came  down  stairs  wrapped  up  and  look- 
ing altogether  a  different  person  from  whom  she  had 
been  hitherto.  .  .  .  (Hardy.) 

The  Standard  Dictionary  speaks  of  look  (in 
the  above  sense)  as  "followed  properly  by  an 
adjective";  and  I  think  the  S.  D.  is  right.  The 
relative  "whom"  is  here  used  as  if,  like  what, 
it  carried  the  sense  of  both  antecedent  and  rela- 
tive. Surely  it  does  not ;  and  surely  a  form  which 
is  in  the  objective  case,  and  can  be  in  no  other, 
cannot  properly  stand  as  a  predicate  nominative. 
Mr.  Hardy,  critic  of  other  present-day  writers, 
should  "look  to  hum." 

The  locus  classicus  "whom  say  ye  that  I  am", 
very  properly  corrected  in  the  Revised  Version, 
has  many  parallels  in  recent  English.  One  of 
our   very   brightest   weeklies   has   "Ambassadors 


THE  PRONOUN  77 

whom  we  are  sure  will  do  us  credit",  and  John 
Fiske  makes  the  same  slip.  I  need  not  print 
the  sentences  before  me  in  which  "whom  nomina- 
tive" is  used  by  W.  E.  Griffis  and  by  a  former 
President,  not  to  speak  of  several  popular  novel- 
ists. On  the  other  hand,  I  copy  this  from  an 
English  Grammar : 

The  interrogative  pronoun  who  may  be  said  to  have 
no  objective  form  in  spoken  English.  We  regularly 
say,  "  Who  did  you  see  ?  "  or,  "  Who  were  they  talking 
to?"  etc. 

and 

In  literary  English  the  objective  form  whom  is  pre- 
ferred for  objective  use. 

Seven  quotations  are  given  to  show  who  used 
as  object ;  but  most  of  them  are  the  English  of 
characters,  not  of  authors.  To  quote  Kingsley, 
for  instance,  as  authority  for  "He  hath  given 
away  half  his  fortune  to  the  Lord  knows  who" 
(even  if  we  admit  that  this  illustration  illustrates) 
would  be  like  charging  Dickens  with  misuse  of 
mutual  because  he  named  a  novel  with  words 
spoken  by  a  character  in  the  novel.  If  authors 
are  to  be  responsible  for  all  their  characters  say 
(or  even  for  its  colloquial  correctness),  why  not 
also  for  all  they  do !     It  so  happens  that  I  have 


78  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

in  my  collection  but  one  example  of  the  use  of 
who  objective.  Thomas  Hardy  says  in  his  own 
person,  "...  who  should  he  see  coming  down 
the  hill  but  his  father  in  the  light  wagon  ..." 
Perhaps  Mr.  Hardy  customarily  uses  this  con- 
struction in  his  "spoken  English";  perhaps,' on 
the  other  hand,  he  uses  it  in  "  Under  the  Green- 
wood Tree",  p.  143,  because  he  is,  so  to  speak,  in 
spirited  narrative  style  identifying  himself  with 
his  rustic  "  hero." 

I  venture  the  opinion  that  at  least  in  the  eastern 
part  of  the  United  States  there  are  a  good  many 
thousands  of  persons  in  whose  spoken  English 
such  expressions  as  "Who  did  you  see?"  are 
carefully  avoided;  and  that  many  of  these  per- 
sons are  not  only  well-bred,  but  bright  and  racy 
in  their  talk.  Not  only  is  the  schoolmaster 
abroad,  but  the  college  professor  (of  either  sex) 
is  in  evidence;  and  sometimes  the  scholarly  pro- 
fessor is  gifted  with  considerable  wit  and  social 
competency.  Such  an  one,  in  spite  of  football 
and  the  rest,  makes  his  mark  on  many  an  under- 
graduate destined  to  be  a  social  leader ;  and  makes 
his  mark  none  the  less  if  he  has  no  more  than 
a  discriminating  fondness  for  the  English  of  livery- 
stables  and  "the  bleachers." 


THE  PRONOUN  79 

Four  more  specimens : 

.  .  .  conditions  which,  if  you  break,  will  straight- 
way narrow  the  flow  of  your  life. 

.  .  .  what  is  not  in  the  Bible,  but  they  have  put  it 
there. 

.  .  .  what  is  a  main  object  of  these  pages  to  point 
out  is  .  .  . 

Not  but  what  young  men  are  still  young  men. 

In  the  first,  a  good  writer  has  "saved"  a  pronoun 
(them)  by  making  "which"  subject  of  one  verb 
and  object  of  another.  The  next,  from  Matthew 
Arnold,  of  course,  may  no  doubt  be  defended  for 
its  self-contradictory  form.  What  is  not  defen- 
sible, I  think,  is  the  coordination.  The  third, 
from  Henry  Drummond,  "saves"  one  pronoun,  it, 
at  the  expense  of  formal  clearness,  idiom,  and 
ease.  The  last  is  from  a  recent  number  of  Scrib- 
ner's  Magazine,  and  was  the  work,  I  suppose,  of 
a  staff  writer.  On  dictionary  authority,  one  might 
hold  that  this  quotation  has  no  place  under  the 
subject  of  Pronouns;  for  the  Standard  on  page 
2701  (edition  of  1913)  unqualifiedly  gives  what 
as  a  conjunction.  Two  uses  are  specified  by 
number.  Of  the  first  use,  "he  gave  them  money, 
what  he  had"  is  given  as  an  illustration;  and  on 
this  I  leave  the  reader  to  make  his  own  comment. 


80  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

Under  "2.",  the  "conjunction"  what  is  defined 
as  meaning  that,  and  there  is  a  cross-reference 
to  but  what.  If  the  reader  turns  over  a  good 
many  pounds  of  pages,  he  finds  on  page  361  the 
information  ( ! )  that  but  what  is  an  incorrect 
expression.  I  shall  continue  to  think  that  what 
is  always  properly  to  be  regarded  as  a  pronoun, 
and  is  grossly  misused  in  this  extract  from  one 
of  our  best  monthlies. 

Speaking  of  the  double  use  of  which :  In  Hardy's 
"Under  the  Greenwood  Tree"  I  read  of  "that 
ancient  and  broad  humour  which  our  grand- 
fathers, and  possibly  grandmothers,  took  delight 
in,  and  is  in  these  days  unquotable."  Wouldn't 
Mr.  Hardy  call  this  "slipshod"? 

The  line,  "The  man  that  has  plenty  of  good 
peanuts",  illustrates  perfectly  the  restrictive  use 
of  the  relative  —  a  use  of  which  the  relative 
that  has  no  monopoly,  but  to  which  it  is  well 
adapted,  and  mostly  confined.  If  it  were  alto- 
gether given  up  to  this  use,  clearness  might  be 
promoted;  yet  there  are  relative  clauses  that 
seem  to  be  on  the  border  —  partly  restrictive 
and  partly  not.  Such  a  clause  is  seen  in  a  sen- 
tence quoted  by  some  one  from  Addison :  "  He 
was  often  tempted  to  pluck  the  flowers  that  rose 


THE   PRONOUN  81 

everywhere  about  him  in  the  greatest  variety." 
An  important  consideration  in  favor  of  using 
that  in  place  of  who  or  which,  provided  it  will 
satisfactorily  express  the  thought,  is  the  lightness 
of  the  word,  its  unpretentiousness  and  informality. 
It  belongs  to  the  speech  of  the  plain  people,  so 
often  a  model  both  of  ease  and  of  force.  Other 
things  being  equal,  the  strength  (force)  of  a  sen- 
tence may  be  said  to  vary  inversely  as  the  num- 
ber, length,  and  (so  to  speak)  self-consciousness 
of  its  words;  and  this  proposition  will  hold 
largely,  also,  for  ease.  Who  is  an  excellent  word, 
in  its  place.  Which  is  a  very  convenient  word, 
but  far  from  melodious ;  it  is  to  be  used  in  moder- 
ation. How  good  and  how  suggestive  is  Ham- 
let's advice  to  the  players:  "Speak  the  speech, 
I  pray  you,  as  I  pronounced  it  to  you,  trippingly 
on  the  tongue",  and  the  rest  of  it ! 

When  Mr.  Brooks  speaks  of  "more  damaging 
criticism  than  any  which  he  puts  into  verse," 
it  is  not  easy  to  see  why  that  should  not  be  used. 
Still  harder  is  it  to  justify  "who"  in  Mr.  Morse's 
"People  often  call  him  [Lincoln]  the  greatest 
man  who  ever  lived",  and  :'He  was  the  most 
individual  man  who  ever  lived."  Colonel  Hig- 
ginson  has  "No  man  who  ever  lived  was  more 


82  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

universally  claimed  as  a  typical  Englishman 
than  Walter  Savage  Landor."  If  "who"  was 
to  be  retained,  it  might  have  been  put  after 
"lived."  The  relative  that  would  have  been 
good,  I  think,  in  Meredith's  sentence:  "He 
deserved  some  commendation  for  still  holding 
up  his  head,  but  it  was  love  and  Rose  who  kept 
the  fires  of  his  heart  alive." 


XII 

SOME  MATTERS  OF  SYNTAX 

I  have  a  good  many  extracts  labeled  "C.  C. 
S.",  Causal  Clause  Substantive.  "Because  this 
young  man  thinks  well  of  you  isn't  reason  enough 
for  you  to  kiss  him",  while  it  conveys  an  important 
truth,  might  seem  to  express  it  in  "a  questionable 
shape."  An  eminent  physician  says  that  "It 
is  not  because  the  odor  is  bad  that  makes  onions 
healthy."  And  the  great  Century  Magazine  de- 
clares that  "because  methods  are  advancing  does 
not  prove  them  to  be  desirable."  The  author 
of  "The  Craftsmanship  of  Writing"  (Mr.  Cooper) 
says: 

The  real  secret  of  his  [Henry  James's]  obscurity 
lies  much  deeper.  It  is  because  he  is  attempting  to 
pursue  his  analysis  of  the  human  heart  and  soul  to  an 
unattainable  point. 

I  don't  know  why    'It  is  because"  should  not 
be  cut  out;    nor  why  "attempting"  should  be 

83 


84  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

used  instead  of  trying.  If,  as  I  suppose,  the  pro- 
noun refers  to  "secret",  why  not  use  that,  or 
in  that,  or  in  the  fact  that,  in  place  of  "because"  ? 

Mr.  Crothers  writes  that  "Because  he  must 
work  hard  with  an  uncertainty  about  the  results, 
is  no  reason  why  he  should  not  yield  .  .  ." 
Messrs.  A.  C.  Benson,  John  Graham  Brooks, 
Robert  A.  Woods,  and  Henry  Van  Dyke  all  have 
the  reason  is  because,  or  the  reason  why  is  because, 
or  the  like  —  yet  I  am  unconvinced. 

Mr.  Woodberry  says  in  "  The  Appreciation  of 
Literature"  that  "One  reason  of  the  facility  with 
which  the  historical  novel  is  written  is  because 
this  outer  theme  ...  is  in  itself  great  .  .  ." 
Whatever  may  be  true  of  the  reason  given  for 
a  thing,  it  seems  clear  enough  that  the  reason  of 
a  thing  is  that  because  of  which  the  thing  is,  takes 
place,  etc.  Substitute  that  for  "because"  in  the 
fragment  quoted  above,  and  the  statement  is 
correct.  If  the  word  "reason"  be  taken  to  refer 
to  the  language  used  in  stating  a  reason,  it  is  not, 
I  think,  too  much  to  ask  that  this  special  sense 
should  be  in  some  way  explicitly  indicated.  In 
Latin  the  word  quod  is  used  to  introduce  either  a 
causal  clause  or  a  strictly  substantive  clause ;  but 
quod  is  a  very  different  word  from  because,  and 


SOME  MATTERS  OF  SYNTAX  85 

seems  originally  not  to  have  been  used  in  the  causal 
sense.  Moreover  the  distinction  between  a  rea- 
son stated  as  a  fact  and  a  reason  given  as  alleged 
or  conceived  by  somebody  is  neatly  made  in 
Latin  by  a  difference  in  the  mode  of  the  verb. 
In  English,  this  convenient  means  is  not  avail- 
able. In  the  case  with  which  we  are  dealing 
it  seems  plain  that  "this  outer  theme  ...  is  in 
itself  great"  is  intended  as  a  statement  of  fact; 
if  so,  the  conjunction  that  would  be  exactly  right. 
No  one  would  question  the  correctness  of  expres- 
sions like  I  remember  his  coming  to  the  city,  and 
on  account  of  their  being  unable  to  proceed;  and 
probably  to  most  intelligent  readers  our  Mr. 
Churchill's  "the  miracle  of  him  staying  there 
where  Providence  had  placed  him"  would  seem 
wrong,  if  their  interest  in  the  story  did  not  pre- 
vent their  attending  to  the  English  of  it.  I  have 
before  me  an  advanced  English  grammar  whose 
authors  profess  to  find  in  "good  literature" 
"the  real  basis  of  grammar."  In  considering 
the  question,  "should  the  possessive  case  of  a 
noun  or  pronoun  always  be  used  with  the  gerund 
to  indicate  the  active  agent?"  —  a  question 
which  does  not  cover  the  ground ;  and  what 
kind  of  a  thing  would  an  inactive  agent  be  !  —  they 


86  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

say,  "it  will  be  noticed  that  the  possessive  of  the 
pronoun  is  more  common  than  that  of  the  noun" ; 
but  in  their  quotations  from  "good  literature" 
the  pronoun  is  every  time  in  the  possessive.  On 
the  other  hand,  when  young  Dana  says  "I  heard 
of  but  one  vessel's  being  driven  ashore  here", 
we  are  perhaps  as  sure  the  construction  is  right 
as  when  similar  expressions  are  cited  from  De 
Quincey,  Carlyle,  and  Thoreau.  But,  not  to 
speak  of  half-a-dozen  great  writers  whom  I  find 
quoted  as  using  the  objective  case  of  the  noun 
with  the  gerund  in  ing,  I  happen  to  have  six 
passages  from  Newman  and  three  from  Ruskin, 
besides  one  each  from  Professor  Lounsbury,  Mr. 
Gilder,  Mr.  Howells,  and  Mr.  John  Graham 
Brooks,  in  all  of  which  I  find  the  objective  of  the 
noun.  I  quote  from  Howells  on  account  of  the 
comparison  afforded : 

.  .  .  that  there  is  a  measure  of  the  same  absurdity 
in  his  trampling  on  a  poem,  a  novel  or  an  essay  that 
does  not  please  him  as  in  a  botanist  grinding  a  plant 
underfoot  because  he  does  not  find  it  pretty. 

Of  course  "botanist  grinding"  is  more  euphonious 
than  botanist's  grinding  would  be;  but  I  think 
I  see  a  further  reason  for  the  choice  of  cases  in 
this  passage.     One  sentence  from  Newman: 


SOME  MATTERS  OF  SYNTAX  87 

It  [Theology]  has  prima  facie  claims  upon  us,  so 
imposing,  that  it  can  only  be  rejected  on  the  ground 
of  those  claims  being  nothing  more  than  imposing, 
that  is,  being  false. 

Not  to  speak  of  the  needlessly  misplaced  "only", 
I  cannot  admire  the  effect  of  the  five  words 
ending  in  ing.  How  easily  his  "being"  might 
have  been  avoided,  the  reader  will  readily  see. 
Illustrations  should  illustrate;  here  is  a  sentence 
which  I  find  quoted  from  Macaulay  to  show  the 
construction  with  the  gerund  : 

We  think  with  far  less  pleasure  of  Cato  tearing  out 
his  entrails  than  of  Russell  saying,  as  he  turned  away 
from  his  wife,  that  the  bitterness  of  death  was  past. 

It  seems  pretty  clear  that  Macaulay's  "tear- 
ing" and  "saying"  are  not  gerunds,  but  parti- 
ciples. It  is  unfortunate  that,  as  participle  and 
gerund  are  identical  in  form,  we  cannot  know 
what  he  meant.  If  there  is  any  serious  doubt, 
Macaulay's  reputation  for  clearness  must  suffer. 
A  newspaper  clipping  shows  how  the  use  of  the 
gerund,  here  perfectly  needless,  may  spoil  a 
sentence : 

Col.  Roosevelt,  in  his  Auditorium  speech,  said  that 
the  ultimate  end  of  justice  in  a  nation  cannot  be 


88  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

achieved  without  the  individual  men  making  up  the 
nation  being  themselves  for  righteousness. 

1.  The  possessive  of  the  personal  pronoun 
with  the  gerund  is  certainly  right.  There  is 
no  need  of  using  the  objective  of  the  personal 
pronoun  with  the  gerund;  and  it  ought  to  be 
reserved  for  use  with  the  present  participle, 
as  in  I  shall  always  remember  him  sitting  erect  on 
his  coal-black  charger  —  not  the  fact  that  he  sat, 
but  him.  2.  The  possessive  of  the  noun  is  cer- 
tainly right ;  but  it  is  not  always  convenient 
to  use  the  possessive.  The  newspaper  English 
quoted  above  shows  an  extreme  case,  where  the 
possessive  simply  cannot  be  used ;  but  there  are 
many  cases  of  option,  where  one  may  well  hesi- 
tate to  use  it.  I  note  that  of  the  extracts  in  my 
collection  which  bear  upon  this  point,  six,  in 
which  the  possessive  is  not  used,  would  not  show 
that  case  in  reading  aloud,  even  though  it  were 
indicated  in  print ;  and  it  is  always  unfortunate, 
except  for  the  "funny  man",  if  the  spoken  word 
does  not  "make  good."  Moreover,  if  a  differ- 
ence of  meaning  between  the  two  uses  can  some- 
times be  perceived,  the  verb  being  made  more 
prominent  by  the  possessive,  the  noun  by  the 
objective,  that  is  a  reason  for  keeping  up  the  two. 


SOME  MATTERS  OF  SYNTAX  89 

"She  stood  and  watched  him  walk  away" 
("A  Chance  Acquaintance")  was  written,  I 
believe,  some  forty  years  ago.  I  doubt  if  the 
dean  of  American  letters  would  write  such  a 
sentence  now,  any  more  than  he  would  submit 
to  the  infliction  of  the  dreadful  woodcuts  which 
then  were  supposed  to  "illustrate"  the  text. 
"Awhile  she  watched  the  sapphire  waters  break" 
is  by  a  younger  novelist,  Mr.  Churchill.  Unlike 
the  other,  it  was  probably  put  in  "prose-poetry" 
form  with  conscious  intention.  The  same  author, 
in  a  less  inspired  moment,  wrote  "...  and 
watch  the  bob-tailed  horse-cars  go  by."  Mr. 
Marion  Crawford  and  Mr.  Bliss  Perry  have  the 
same  use  of  watch;  also  Mrs.  Humphry  Ward, 
if  I  mistake  not.  This  probably  is  English, 
but  to  me  it  does  not  seem  good.  Much  worse, 
I  think,  are  expressions  like  witness  them  flay 
ball,  or  "witness  the  hounds  drive  him."  Mr. 
Woodrow  Wilson  wrote  "He  reads  books  as  he 
would  listen  to  men  talk"  ;  I  found  in  Life  "... 
listen  to  some  distinguished  author  read  from  his 
own  works";  and  you  may  hear  any  street  arab 
yell  "Look  at  'im  run!"  Matthew  Arnold  has 
"will  find  his  work  live",  and  "make  him  announc- 
ing"; George  Meredith,  "...  as  we  mark  Mr. 


90  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

Evan  Harrington  step  into  the  fair  society  of 
the  drawing-room";  and  John  Henry  Newman, 
"Not  that  we  should  not  feel  pleased  and  proud 
to  find  Catholics  distinguish  themselves."  If 
any  reader  thinks  that  my  own  citations  are  of 
sufficient  authority  to  prove  me  in  the  wrong  — 
there  is  no  law  against  thinking  so. 

Probably  most  persons  who  are  familiar  with 
the  phrase  "sequence  of  tenses"  think  of  what 
it  stands  for  as  belonging  to  the  syntax  of  the 
Latin  language.  It  has  seemed  to  me  that  in 
real  English  there  is  less  freedom  as  to  combina- 
tion of  tenses  than  in  Latin.  Certainly  our  idiom 
is  such  that  a  foreigner  learning  the  language 
needs  to  be  careful  lest  he  get  his  tenses  "mixed." 
Certainly,  too,  we  who  are  to  the  manner  born  do 
not  always  handle  our  tenses  with  a  sure  touch. 
And  the  Revisers  of  1611,  however  inferior  in 
scholarship  to  the  students  of  our  time,  showed  by 
their  free  treatment  of  the  Greek  aorist  a  feeling  for 
English  tense  which,  I  suppose,  has  something  to 
do  with  the  superiority  of  their  version  of  the  New 
Testament,  in  point  of  style,  to  the  version  of  1885. 

McCarthy  has  a  sentence  so  harsh  in  its  use 
of  tenses  that  I  have  studied  it  lest  I  might  be 
mistaken  in  the  meaning : 


SOME  MATTERS  OF  SYNTAX  91 

Mill  was  one  of  the  few  men  who  have  only  to  be 
convinced  that  a  thing  was  incumbent  on  them  as  a 
public  duty  to  set  about  doing  it  forthwith,  no  matter 
how  distasteful  it  might  be  to  them  personally,  or 
what  excellent  excuses  they  might  offer  for  leaving  the 
duty  to  others. 

The  Outlook  has  imperfect  for  pluperfect  in'  "The 
Mohegan  was  a  new  steamship,  and  was  formerly 
known  on  another  line  as  the  Cleopatra."  By  the 
use  of  had  been  for  the  second  was,  the  time-rela- 
tions would  be  properly  indicated.  Mr.  Howells, 
Mr.  Crawford,  and  Sir  Gilbert  Parker  use  aorist 
for  pluperfect.     Newman : 

He  [St.  Philip  Neri]  lived  at  a  time  when  pride 
mounted  high,  and  the  senses  held  rule;  a  time  when 
kings  and  nobles  never  had  more  of  state  and  homage, 
and  never  less  of  personal  responsibility  and  peril.  .  .  . 

Does  he  use  "had"  for  had  had,  or  does  he  mean, 
letting  idiom  take  the  blame  of  his  formless  sen- 
tence, to  convey  that  kings  and  nobles  never 
had  more  state,  etc.,  before  or  after  that  time? 
Matthew  Arnold  writes  (quoting  John,  VIII, 
42),  "If  God  was  your  father  ..."  Here  the 
English  of  the  Authorized  Version  was  both 
correct  and,  as  usual,  good;  and  in  the  Revised 
Version   the   "were"   is   of   course  retained.     A 


92  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

good  many  years  ago  Professor  A.  S.  Hill,  un- 
qualifiedly condemning  such  use  of  the  indicative 
for  the  subjunctive,  said,  "In  England  this  use 
of  the  indicative  is  found  in  good  authors,  and 
seems  to  be  gaining  ground."  We  in  America, 
at  least,  are  not  bound  by  British  usage;  and 
every  thoughtful  user  of  words  owes  it  to  his 
mother  tongue  to  maintain  useful  distinctions 
rather  than  help  do  away  with  them.  In  a  case 
like  this  I  suppose  there  is  not  even  the  commercial 
reason  which  induces  some  of  our  leading  pub- 
lishers to  "favour"  the  use  of  variant  spellings 
like  "honourable."  I  have  half-a-dozen  quota- 
tions from  Professor  Brander  Matthews  in  which 
he  thus  uses  was  for  were.  Lowell  has  "... 
when  it  seemed  to  the  people  as  if  there  was 
nothing  more  important  at  stake  than  who  should 
be  in  and  who  out  ..." 

I  know  no  sufficient  reason  for  using  any  of  the 
following  mixed  forms : 

...  it  seems  as  if  nothing  but  romantic  sentiment 
can  unite  them. 

.  .  .  the  figures  roll  up  as  if  they  mean  to  go  .  .  . 

It  seems,  too,  as  if  the  very  greatness  of  our  tools 
and  of  our  ambitions  tends  to  raise  the  mind  above 
mean  conceptions  of  life.     (Professor  George  A.  Coe.) 


SOME  MATTERS  OF  SYNTAX  93 

.  .  .  they  tend  to  speak  as  if  only  some  coldness 
and  hardness  of  nature  .  .  .  holds  men  and  women 
back  .  .  .  (Benson.) 

Change  these  sentences  into  English  —  a  child 
can  do  it  —  and  the  thought  will  be  well  expressed. 
Here  is  something  different,  from  Newman : 

Their  eyes  are  opened;  and  .  .  .  they  see  ...  a 
magic  universe,  out  of  which  they  look  back  upon  their 
former  state  ...  as  if  they  were  then  but  fools,  and 
the  dupes  of  imposture. 

Spare  to  us,  English  cousins,  the  subjunctive 
were,  in  present  conditions  contrary  to  fact ! 
And  pray  forbear  to  "work  it"  for  the  sense  of 
had  been.  Mr.  Fuller  has  a  like  use  of  were, 
with  more  excuse  (as  it  avoids  repetition) ;  but 
I  am  not  sure  that  he  makes  any  net  gain  in  ease : 

The  Prorege  .  .  .  would  have  been  well  enough 
pleased  .  .  .  were  not  every  puff  that  filled  the  Adria's 
wide-spread  sails  carrying  him  .  .  . 

Here  belong  the  following  quotations  : 

He  .  .  .  would  not  have  cared  to  make  any  dis- 
play .  .  .  even  if  he  had  the  gift.  (McCarthy.) 

Many  of  them  would  perhaps  rather  have  voted 
with  Mr.  Disraeli  ...  if  they  could  see  their  way. 

(McCarthy.) 


94  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

I  clutched  my  gun,  half  angrily,  as  if  it  was  to 
blame  .  .  .  (Burroughs.) 

...  it  would  seem  to  the  layman  as  if  the  courts 
have  sometimes  fallen  short  .  .  .  (President  Hadley.) 

If  it  were  true  that  each  man's  mental  horizon  were 
bounded  by  his  class  interests  .  .  .  (Hadley.) 

The  English  language  has  not  yet  lost  the  power 
to  give  the  exact  sense  in  cases  like  these.  / 
clutched  my  gun  as  if  it  had  been  to  blame  is  practi- 
cally clear,  it  is  exact,  and  it  is  English.  Were 
would  be  better  than  "was",  but  naturally  refers 
to  present  time.  It  is  true  that  in  Latin  the 
imperfect  subjunctive  in  condition,  corresponding 
to  our  were,  may  refer  to  past  time;  but  the 
ambiguities  of  another  language  do  not  justify 
needless  ambiguities  in  English.  I  believe  an 
advanced  English  grammar  which  lies  on  my 
table  does  not  go  too  far  in  saying  that  this  sub- 
junctive were  is  "still  a  required  form  of  the  Eng- 
lish language",  and  has  "no  reference  to  past 
time."  The  second  quotation  from  President 
Hadley  is  given  because  instead  of  using  was  for 
were,  he  uses  the  second  were,  correctly  enough, 
where  most  speakers  and  writers  would  use  is 
or  was.  This  use  of  was,  if  defended  at  all,  must 
be  defended,  I  take  it,  as  idiomatic. 


SOME  MATTERS  OF  SYNTAX  95 

Of  the  extracts  that  follow,  the  first  three  are 
naturally  grouped  with  conditional  sentences; 
the  rest  may  as  well  be  given  here,  perhaps,  as 
elsewhere. 

It  begins  to  look  as  though  the  immunity  from 
prosecution  which  the  express  companies  have  so  long 
enjoyed  is  to  cease  and  that  the  companies,  like  the 
railroads,  are  to  be  subjected  to  regulation. 

(Newspaper.) 

It  seems  as  if  not  merely  coarse  and  unlettered  men 
.  .  .  but  that  all  men  .  .  .  bow  the  knee  .  .  . 

(Ian  Maclaren.) 

The  commissioner  was  to  receive  twice  the  fee  if 
the  man  were  surrendered  into  slavery  as  if  he  were 
discharged. 

I  am  going  ahead  and  do  the  best  I  can. 

(President  Taft,  as  quoted  in  press  dispatches.) 

He  insists  on  doing  all  the  self-sacrifice,  and  have 
us  take  the  ignominious  part  of  passive  recipients  of 
his  goodness.  (Crothers.) 

.  .  .  interesting  little  fellows,  full  of  odd,  funny 
ways,  and  without  being  true  squirrels,  have  most  of 
their  accomplishments. 

Careful  examination  of  the  whole  sentence 
about  the  "little  fellows"  discloses  no  subject 
for  "have." 


XIII 

MISUSED  PARTICLES 

Use  them  after  your  own  honor  and  dignity 

The  "little  parts"  of  speech  are  not  to  be  de- 
spised or  ill-treated.  Our  dealing  with  the  small 
occasions  of  life  will  generally  expose  our  dignity, 
or  lack  of  it. 


...  his  success,  again  and 
again,  seems  to  be  certain. 
(Arnold.) 

It  is  by  a  multitude  of 
such  considerations  .  .  .  that 
the  framers  of  policy  can 
alone  divine  what  is  prac- 
ticable and  therefore  wise. 
(Lowell.) 

...  he  knew  that  it  was 
of  no  use  to  try  and  prevent 
Paul  from  undertaking  the 
journey.     (Crawford.)1 


"Adverbs  modify  verbs, 
adjectives,  and  other  ad- 
verbs." 

The  particle  "alone"  after 
"considerations  ",  or  the  par- 
ticle only  after  "is",  would 
be  in  its  proper  place.  If 
more  emphasis  is  wanted,  get 
it  legitimately. 

This  is  worse  than  the 
common  use  of  "try  and" 
for  try  to,  being  opposed  to 
the  sense  intended. 


1  This  "  try  and  "  seems  to  be  a  favorite  expression  of  Matthew 
Arnold's. 

96 


MISUSED   PARTICLES 


97 


...  he  was  not  equal  to  "The  words  just  quoted" 

imagining  anything  quite  as  were  insultingly,  disreputably 

bad  as  the  words  just  quoted.  bad.     This  is  just  the  place 

.  .  .     (Mary  Hallock  Foote.)  for  so  after  a  negative. 

.  .  .  and    yet,    as   far   as  I  think  the  expression  is 

fiction     is     concerned,     this  demonstrative    rather    than 

method    is    not   without   its  comparative,   and  so  far  as 

drawbacks.     (Perry.)  would  be  right. 

.  .  .  sufficiently     indiffer-  I  suppose  this  use  of  "as" 

ent  ...  as  not  to  "compose  to    be    a    mere    slip.     I    am 

an  attitude "  for  our  benefit.  sorry  it  could  pass  the  proof  - 

(The     Point     of     View,     in  reader. 
Scribner's.) 


I  have  from  William  James's  "The  Will  to 
Believe",  "between  believing  truth  or  falsehood", 
"between  an  America  rescued  by  a  Washington 
or  by  a  Jenkins",  and  "between  a  journey  to 
Portland  or  to  New  York."  With  these  compare 
"between  connecting  them  with  the  pure  or 
the  prepositional  infinitive"  (Lounsbury),  and 
"between  corporate  greed  or  corporate  right- 
eousness." (Jesse  Macy.)  John  Fiske  has  "be- 
tween one  another"  ;  Margaret  Deland,  "between 
every  mouthful";  Thomas  Hardy,  "between 
each  white  lobe  of  honeycomb."  A  President's 
message  speaks  of  "fraternal  bonds  between 
every  section  of  the  country."  Edward  Everett 
Hale  excels,  upon  occasion,  even  in  the  badness 


98  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

of  his  English.  "Murray  and  the  dictionaries", 
he  writes,  "confirm  his  quick  guess  between  the 
relation  of  one  of  these  words  to  the  other." 
The  "quick  guess",  I  believe,  was  Lowell's. 
The  newspaper,  of  course,  is  at  least  a  close 
second :  "And  there  is  not  the  slightest  difference 
between  this  power  than  the  power  of  a  court 
..."  I  add  from  Meredith,  "glaring  shrewdly  be- 
tween a  mouthful",  and  from  Paul  Elmer  More, 
"to  judge  honestly  between  the  conflict  of  claims." 

In  "she  took  a  far  different  course  from  us", 
we  have  a  very  simple  case  of  confusion,  and 
easily  remedied.  The  preposition  from  should 
be  used  in  a  comparison  of  things  that  are  com- 
parable. Probably  the  written  English  of  "Two 
Years  Before  the  Mast"  bears  a  strong  resem- 
blance to  the  spoken  English  of  the  better  class  of 
Harvard  students  in  Dana's  day.  Hence,  in  part, 
its  good  qualities ;  and  hence,  of  course,  such 
sentences  as  "This  was  bad  for  our  trade,  for 
the  collecting  of  hides  is  managed  differently 
in  this  part  from  what  it  is  in  any  other  on  the 
coast."  If  he  had  said  is  a  different  business,  the 
sentence  would  have  been  more  rational,  and 
might  have  served  his  purpose. 

The  preposition  into  is  ill  used  in  "the  first 


MISUSED   PARTICLES  99 

appearance  of  the  family  .  .  .  into  polite  so- 
ciety" and  "placing  the  Commoner  into  the 
homes  of  their  friends."  William  Black  wrote, 
"George  Brand  found  that  they  were  almost  into 
London";  Mrs.  Phelps  Ward,  "...  the  great 
crimes  into  which  Emanuel  Bayard  had  arrived." 

The  use  of  like  as  a  conjunction,  with  the  sense 
of  as,  is  a  piece  of  illiteracy  whose  prevalence  has 
induced  the  Standard  Dictionary  to  set  down  this 
use  as  "colloquial."  In  the  speech  of  an  ignora- 
mus, it  would  not  be  surprising;  but  Jevons, 
the  English  economist,  wrote,  "We  have  no 
means  of  defining  and  measuring  quantities  of 
feeling,  like  we  can  measure  a  mile." 

We  are  not  surprised  when  an  illiterate  person 
uses  a  superlative  in  comparing  two  persons  or 
things.  It  is  different  when  Mr.  Leslie  Stephen 
writes  that  "It  is  a  blending  of  pride  and  remorse 
.  .  .  and  we  are  puzzled  to  say  whether  the  pride 
or  the  remorse  be  the  most  genuine." 

Neither,  nor,  and  or  come  in  for  their  share : 

The  time  thought  little  of  them,  neither  did  Tenny- 
son. (Stopford  Brooke.) 

Hardly  for  one  moment  now  was  she  at  ease  with 
him,  nor  could  feel  the  least  faith  or  pride  in  his  show 
of  affection  for  her.  (Mary  Hallock  Foote.) 


100  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

What  business  it  was  of  theirs,  nor  what  right  they 
claim,  does  not  appear.  (Outlook.) 

.  .  .  there  was  no  cheering  or  any  sign  of  public 
interest.  (Howells.) 

These  sentences  may  not  all  be  equally  bad. 
No  one  of  them,  I  think,  is  the  English  of  good 
prose. 

Of  is  omitted  in  "a  couple  days'  march",  mis- 
used in  "acquainting  the  Philippine  leaders  of  the 
disposition  of  the  American  people"  (obsolete 
use),  and  in  "An  author  of  ideals"  (meaning  with 
ideals).  It  is  awkwardly  used,  I  think,  in  "the 
obtaining  of  special  privileges",  and  "for  the 
humanizing  of  the  world."  Mr.  Howells  has 
"a  family  of  intimate  friendship  with  the 
Marches." 

In  "justice  is  always  and  only  politic",  Lowell's 
rhetoric  (or  is  it  his  indolence?)  has  put  a  strain 
upon  his  grammar.  He  cannot  mean  that  jus- 
tice is  nothing  but  politic.  I  must  think  he  has 
misused  his  adverb  only,  and  committed  a  need- 
less offence  against  clearness. 

Mr.  Arnold  Bennett  gives  us  "Less  than  a  fort- 
night previously."  The  context  might  conceiv- 
ably show  some  reason  or  excuse  for  using  "pre- 
viously" instead  of  the  good  word  before.     My 


MISUSED  PARTICLES  101 

experience  of  contexts,  however,  makes  me  think 
the  chances  are  fifty  to  one  that  I  overlooked  no 
such  reason  or  excuse  when  I  made  the  extract. 

Supposing,  indeed,  religions  cannot  be  ascertained, 
then,  of  course,  it  is  not  only  idle,  but  mischievous,  to 
attempt  to  do  so.  .  .  .  (Newman.) 

If  Newman  had  used  the  active  infinite,  ascer- 
tain, or  to  ascertain,  the  use  of  "so"  would  be 
justified.  He  has  not  spoken  of  doing  anything, 
in  any  way.  Why  not,  attempt  to  ascertain  them  ? 
Meredith  tells  of  "a  lean  Marine  subaltern  .  .  . 
who  had  come  to  be  a  major  of  that  corps"; 
but  he  has  not  mentioned  any  corps.  I  quote 
this  out  of  its  proper  place,  because  the  fault 
is  of  the  same  kind  as  Newman's.  Many  other 
misuses  of  so  will  be  given  under  Clearness. 

Nevertheless,  as  all  Christian  churches  do  recom- 
mend the  method  and  the  secret  of  Jesus,  though  not 
in  the  right  way  or  in  the  right  eminency,  still  the 
world  is  made  partially  acquainted  with  what  righteous- 
ness really  is.  .  .  .  (Arnold.) 

Arnold's  "still"  goes  well  enough  with 
"though",  but  does  not  go  well  with  "neverthe- 
less, as." 

The  particle  than  suffers  a  good  deal  of  hard 
usage.     I  find  different  than  or  differently    than 


102  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

used  by  Senator  Hoar,  by  a  professor  of  Church 
History,  and  by  one  of  our  foremost  men  of  letters. 
In  the  Outlook  is  prefer  than,  and  William  T.  Stead 
used  the  same.  Professor  Woodberry  has  prefer- 
ably than.  Scarcely  than,  hardly  than,  opposite 
than,  so  intelligently  than,  not  to  mention  than  us  for 
than  we,  and  than  her  for  than  she,  have  been  treas- 
ured in  my  museum  of  "English  as  she  is  wrote." 

Enough  of  this  has  nevertheless  come  to  pass  that 
we  see  something  of  these  rare  values  emerging  from 
the  very  jaws  of  the  industrial  monster.       (Brooks.) 

He  was  .  .  .  preoccupied  because  his  San  Francisco 
offices  were  burning  and  that  no  further  news  was 
arriving.  .  .  .  (H.  G.  Wells.) 

A  workingman's  family  will  make  every  effort  and 
sacrifice  that  the  brightest  daughter  be  sent  .  .  . 
through  the  normal  school,  quite  as  much  because  a 
teacher  in  the  family  raises  the  general  social  standing 
...  as  that  the  returns  are  superior  to  factory  or 
even  office  work.  (Miss  Addams.) 

I  cannot  say  whether  he  inherited  his  feeling  of 
rank  from  Mel,  his  father,  or  that  the  Countess  had 
succeeded  in  instilling  it.  .  .  .  (Meredith.) 


The  correlation  of  "enough"  with  "that" 
is  a  solecism  that  should  be  carefully  avoided  by 
a  writer  who  is  about  to  see  "values"  emerging 
from   the   jaws   of   a   monster !     In   the    second 


MISUSED  PARTICLES  103 

sentence,  one  wonders  whether  "that"  is  used  as 
a  representative  of  "because",  or  is  simply  mis- 
used as  if  "preoccupied"  were  some  word  like 
sorry  or  angry.  In  the  third,  the  use  of  "be" 
for  may  be  seems  a  bit  reactionary,  and  the  com- 
parison of  "returns"  with  "office  work"  is  not 
rational;  but  I  have  used  the  passage  here  on 
account  of  Miss  Addams's  second  use  of  "that", 
which  I  take  to  be  a  Gallicism. 

I  note  Mr.  Thomas  Kirkup's  odd  use  of  till 
in  "It  was  hardly  till  1848  that  the  working  class 
made  its  entrance  on  the  stage  of  history."  I 
suppose  he  means  hardly  earlier  than  1848. 

Professor  Shaler's  "to  this  state  the  peoples 
.  .  .  appear  to  have  arrived",  and  Professor 
Rauschenbusch's  "the  attitude  of  primitive  Chris- 
tianity to  the  empire",  might  be  objected  to  by 
a  pestiferous  purist. 

For  "the  enduring  bitterness  toward  England 
which  her  attitude  .  .  .  produced  upon  the  Ameri- 
can people"  (Brooks),  I  see  no  excuse.  You 
may  make  an  impression  "upon"  the  people, 
but  international  "bitterness"  goes  deeper. 


XIV 

MISUSED  WORDS  IN  GENERAL 

The  words  of  the  wise  are  as  goads,  and  as  nails  fastened  by 
the  masters  of  assemblies 

I  suppose  the  old  version  is  wrong;  but  a 
wrong  translation  may  tell  the  truth,  and  may 
be  no  less  suggestive  than  if  it  were  correct.  The 
words  of  the  wise  have  point ;  they  act  as  stimuli. 
They  (to  speak  ideally)  are  put  as  with  a  sure 
hand  where  they  belong,  and  driven  straight 
home  in  a  masterly  way.  They  are  selected 
according  to  their  fitness  for  special  uses  and 
serve  their  purpose  according  to  good  structural 
principles.  Some  of  us  can  remember  that  it 
needed  sense  to  drive  an  old-fashioned  "cut" 
nail,  in  the  days  when  masterly  men  took  pride 
in  the  work  of  their  hands.  Some  of  us  have  never 
"got  over"  the  thrill  that  came  when  good  work- 
manship delivered  up  to  our  young  imaginations 
the  secret  of  its  beauty  and  dignity. 

104 


MISUSED  WORDS  IN  GENERAL        105 

Referring  to  a  statement  quoted  from  a  certain 
Professor,  Newman  says,  "It  is  just  so  far  true, 
as  to  be  able  to  instil  what  is  false,  far  as  the 
author  was  from  any  such  design."  Better 
punctuation  (deleting  the  first  comma  and  chang- 
ing the  second  to  a  dash)  would  transform  this 
loose  sentence  so  that  it  would  not  know  itself; 
but  the  main  point  is  that  I  find  nothing  in  Mur- 
ray's great  dictionary  to  justify  using  the  adjective 
"able"  of  things.  "No  one,"  says  Matthew 
Arnold,  "recognizes  his  [Carlyle's]  genius  more 
admirably  [sic]  than  I  do."  The  use  of  "aggra- 
vate" for  exasperate  and  the  like  by  A.  C.  Benson, 
Henry  B.  Fuller,  and  others  may  foretoken  the 
loss  of  a  rational  and  useful  distinction.  We  who 
regard  the  origin  of  a  word  as  having  something 
to  do  with  its  proper  meaning  and  use  will  not 
yet  admit  that  the  evil  day  has  come.  The  use 
of  another  as  if  it  were  two  separate  words,  as  in 
"another,  more  compelling  type",  may  be  con- 
venient, but  is  unnecessary  and,  I  think,  bad. 
From  a  Chicago-Tribune  editorial  I  cut  out  the 
sentence,  "Some  day  we  are  apt  [likely]  to  exam- 
ine an  'accident'  as  we  ought  to  examine  a  crime." 
We  expect  such  illiteracies  in  obscure  local  sheets ; 
they  should  at  least  be  excluded  from  the  editorial 


106  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

columns  of  a  great  newspaper.  The  distinction 
between  attempt  and  try  is  sufficiently  clear,  and 
is  useful.  I  think  Professor  Rauschenbusch  dis- 
regards it  in  "When  they  speak  of  their  nation 
as  a  virgin,  as  a  city,  as  a  vine,  they  are  attempting 
by  these  figures  of  speech  to  express  this  organic 
and  corporate  social  life." 

Mr.  Birrell  has  it  that  "...  both  Mr.  and 
Mrs.  Edmund  Burke  were  of  the  same  way  of 
thinking."  The  context  makes  it  plain  that  he 
means  the  two  thought  alike.  If  he  meant  that 
they  agreed  with  somebody  else,  there  might  be 
some  use  for  "both."  Comprise  is  a  good  deal 
misused ;  so  much  that  when  a  writer  in  the  Inde- 
pendent says  'The  New  York  police  comprise 
a  splendid  army  ",  it  is  ten  to  one  that  he  does  not 
mean  what  he  says.  Somebody  thinks  "com- 
prise" sounds  well,  and  uses  it  with  the  reckless- 
ness of  ignorance.  Twenty  somebodies  (nobodies) 
misuse  the  word ;  perhaps  one  intelligent  per- 
son carelessly  follows  suit ;  by-and-by  its  meaning 
is  forgotten.  More  than  once  William  James 
uses  either  in  speaking  of  an  indefinite  number  of 
things,  as  in  "either  of  many  ways."  Will  any 
sane  person  imitate  this  misuse  because  we  all 
hold  the  name  of  William  James  in  high  esteem ! 


MISUSED  WORDS  IN  GENERAL        107 

"Were  Johnson  to  come  to  life  again  ",  writes 
Mr.  Bin-ell,  "total  abstainer  as  he  often  was, 
he  would,  I  expect,  denounce  the  principle  in- 
volved in  'Local  Option.'"  Newman,  too,  mis- 
uses expect,  though  not  so  badly.  Shall  we, 
then,  make  haste  to  join  the  procession?  There 
are  so  many  little  folk  on  the  march  (toward 
linguistic  chaos)  that  the  name  is  appropriate. 
Admiral  (then  Captain)  Mahan  wrote  of  some- 
body's "urging  the  expedition  of  a  land  force." 
That  sounds  scholarly,  and  such  use  of  "expedi- 
tion" is  not  difficult  to  justify  in  pure  theory; 
but  I  don't  discover  that  the  lexicographers 
have  heard  of  it  as  a  matter  of  actual  English 
usage. 

Will  "usage"  justify  Professor  Lounsbury's 
"In  his  devotion  to  what  he  fancied  correctness 
he  was  capable  .  .  ."?  I  trow  not.  In  "I  feel 
some  explanation  is  due  from  him  ",  a  great  writer 
does  not  well  to  omit  that;  if  you  and  I  "feel" 
that  this  verb,  as  used  here,  is  greatly  overworked 
—  what  is  that  to  the  feminizers  of  language ! 
So  Mr.  Chesterton:  "I  feel  there  is  something 
national  ...  in  the  fact  that  there  is  no  statue  of 
Shakspere."  He  might  have  left  out  one  more 
that  I    Can  one  feel  unconsciousness  f    No  more 


108  WORKMANSHIP  IN   WORDS 

than  one  can  touch  a  vacuum.  "At  all  events, 
his  unconsciousness  of  linguistic  criminality,  which 
he  seems  to  have  felt  at  the  beginning  of  his  career, 
was  shared  in  by  no  small  number  of  his  contem- 
poraries." (Lounsbury.)  The  point  was  that 
he  (Browning)  did  not  "feel"  anything  about  it. 
"The  two  first"  deserves  a  paragraph. 

If  it  ["first"]  is  to  be  considered  an  ordinal,  no  one 
would  be  likely  to  maintain  that  "the  two  first"  is  to 
be  justified.  If,  however,  it  is  to  be  looked  upon  as 
an  adjective,  Moore's  explanation  of  its  meaning  and 
propriety  is  perfectly  satisfactory.  (Lounsbury.) 

To  an  old  user  of  grammars  and  dictionaries, 
the  assumption  that  an  ordinal  is  not  an  adjective 
is  an  assumption  that  the  species  does  not  belong 
to  the  genus  which  includes  it.  The  writer  seems 
to  have  in  mind  what  have  been  called  respec- 
tively limiting  adjectives  and  qualifying  adjec- 
tives. On  the  expressions  (a)  the  first  two  men 
and  (6)  the  two  first  men,  I  remark : 

1.  In  "a"  there  is  no  contradiction  of  terms; 
in  "6"  there  is  at  least  an  apparent  contradiction. 
This  comparison,  other  things  being  equal,  is  suffi- 
cient to  shut  "6"  out  of  the  competition  as  the 
less  clear. 

2.  As  to  the  contention  that  "the  first  two" 


MISUSED  WORDS  IN  GENERAL        109 

implies  a  second  two  following,  whereas  there 
may  be  only  three  in  all,  certainly  in  "a"  the 
"two  men"  are  regarded  collectively;  and  cer- 
tainly they,  taken  collectively,  are  first  in  the 
series,  whatever  number  of  other  men  the  series 
may  include.  If  there  are  only  three  in  the 
series,  yet  there  are  three  different  twos,  of  which 
"a"  clearly  indicates  the  two  that  comes  first. 

Mr.  Chesterton  says  on  one  page,  "A  man  has 
not  got  a  right";  on  the  next,  "But  a  man  has 
got  the  right " ;  and  a  little  further  on,  "  He  is 
vain  about  the  virtue  he  has  not  got ;  but  he  may 
be  humble  about  the  virtues  that  he  has  got." 
He  has  no  mind  to  leave  the  reader  in  doubt 
as  to  the  "usage"  of  Chesterton.  And  our  Mr. 
Cooper : 

But  whatever  a  writer's  purpose  may  be,  and  what- 
ever type  of  literature  he  has  chosen  in  which  to  express 
it,  he  has  got  to  do  something  more  than  idly  say  to 
himself  one  fine  day,  "I  think  I  will  write  (let  us  say) 
a  sonnet  about  a  pearl  or  a  novel  about  the  beef  trust," 
—  and  then  on  another  fine  day  formulates  his  first 
line  .  .  . 

There  is  perhaps  more  excuse  for  this  use  of 
"got"  than  for  Chesterton's.  Have  is  quite 
sufficient  to  express  possession,  and  expression  is 


110  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

weakened  by  adding  the  needless  and  superfluous 
word.  For  the  colloquial  use  of  have  got  to  express 
necessity,  unavoidableness,  it  may  be  argued 
that  "I  have  to"  is  often  used  of  what  is  cus- 
tomary, as  in  "I  have  to  take  a  good  deal  of 
exercise",  while  "I've  got  to"  has  a  sense  clearly 
different,  as  in  "I've  got  to  take  my  exercise, 
else  I  shall  have  a  headache."  It  seems  likely 
that  certain  colloquial  informalities  will  come  to 
be  used  in  serious  writing  more  than  they  are  at 
present;  but  colloquial  improprieties  should  not 
be  too  readily  adopted  into  the  language  of  liter- 
ature. The  tendencies  that  make  for  question- 
able innovation  are  constant,  automatic,  effec- 
tive ;  the  conservatism  of  the  careful  writer  is 
needed  to  keep  the  language  pure  and  strong. 
The  reader  will  have  noticed  in  the  quotation  the 
(presumably)  careless  use  of  "formulates"  for 
the  infinitive  formulate;  and  will  perhaps  have 
questioned  the  use  of  "express." 

"Dick  and  Bob  happened  both  to  be  home  on 
leave",  writes  Mr.  Ho  wells.  My  dictionary  gives 
home  as  an  adverb,  both  of  the  place  to  which  and 
of  the  place  at  which.  Its  illustration  for  the 
latter,  the  locative  sense,  is  "home  at  last"  — 
which  might  easily  be  explained  as  illustrating 


MISUSED  WORDS  IN  GENERAL        111 

the  former.  I  do  not  believe  that  "I  was  home" 
is  good  English.  Ruskin  has  "latter"  (of  four 
pictures  named)  for  last.  I  fear  that  "loan"  for 
lend  —  originally,  as  I  fully  believe,  an  ignorant  or 
heedless  affectation  —  has  come  to  stay,  in  spite 
of  the  dictionaries.  Even  President  Wilson  has 
used  it.  Matthew  Arnold  has  "look  why  this  is 
so,  and  whether  it  is  so  without  any  limitations." 
I  take  it  that  he  uses  "look"  for  consider.  "I 
am  indeed  to  love  my  neighbor  as  myself,  but 
this  means  that  I  am  to  love  myself  as  my  neigh- 
bor." (Coe.)  I  think  not  —  it  "means"  what  it 
says,  but  logically  implies  the  other.  In  "chairs 
in  more  or  less  state  of  dilapidation"  (Churchill), 
we  have  "more"  used  in  a  way  that  is  too  bad 
to  be  funny;  and  is  "dilapidation"  used  in  pure 
heedlessness,  or  with  a  fine  manly  contempt  of 
"pedantry"?  Very  common,  I  believe,  are  ex- 
pressions like  "the  most  popular  ...  of  any 
man  in  California";  and  I  know  not  whether 
they  are  more  needless  or  more  irrational.  Pos- 
sibly Bottom's  "grow  to  a  point"  will  seem  to 
posterity  less  funny  than  it  has  seemed  to  us. 
I  read  of  "points  ...  in  which  the  struggle  has 
been  going  on",  of  "the  correctness  or  incorrect- 
ness of  these  disputed  points",  of  "a  point  of 


112  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

view"  which  "can  never  accord  with  the  actual 
development  of  historic  forces",  and  of  one  who 
"linked  his  points  of  view,  the  convictions  which 
he  regarded  as  axiomatic"  with  —  I  don't  know 
what;  and  the  old  point  with  "position  but  no 
magnitude"  has  grown  so,  and  the  word  has  taken 
on  such  a  wealth  of  meaning  and  relations,  that 
I  am  quite  upset.  Without  any  disposition  to 
"press  the  point",  one  might  suggest  that  in 
using  a  word  there  is  sometimes  no  harm  in  hark- 
ing back  to  its  proper  sense. 

Professor  McMaster  has  in  his  History,  "This 
article  [ice],  since  come  to  be  regarded  as  much  a 
necessity  of  life  as  meat  and  bread."  Very  proper 
to  avoid  repeating  "as"  ;  but,  omitting  the  as  that 
belongs  with  "regarded",  he  might  of  course  have 
changed  the  participle  to  considered.  Chesterton : 
"...  the  result  on  the  players  would  not  be  play- 
ful, it  would  be  tragic."  A  common  error,  this 
use  of  "result"  for  effect.  Mr.  Galsworthy  uses 
the  expression  "  seemed  recording."  I  miss  the  to 
be.  The  New- York  Tribune:  "Headgear  which 
might  well  substitute  the  diadem."  A  palpable 
misuse  of  the  verb.  Mr.  Howells  speaks  of  "the 
respective  merits  of  the  Columannia  and  Nor- 
umbia",  misusing  "the"  by  not  giving  it  a  mate. 


MISUSED   WORDS  IN   GENERAL        113 

So  Andrew  Lang  :  "the  Iliad  or  Odyssey."  Miss 
Addams :  ...  that  they  both  do  what  they 
want  and  spend  their  money  as  they  please." 
Whatever  may  be  true  of  other  verbs  (choose, 
etc.),  "want"  as  here  used  requires  a  comple- 
mentary infinitive. 

In  Mr.  Fernald's  "Helpful  Hints  in  English" 
the  excellent  advice,  "Watch  that  your  pronoun 
has  an  antecedent  to  which  the  mind  may,  and 
must,  refer  it  without  confusion",  might  be 
better  expressed  —  or  am  I  behind  the  times  ? 
If  "Watch"  might  properly  be  followed  by  a 
subjunctive  {have),  well  and  good;  but  I  do  not 
think  our  idiom  justifies  the  object-clause  Mr. 
Fernald  has  used.  It  is  surprising  to  find  in 
an  important  address  by  Elihu  Root  the  phrase 
"way  down  in  their  hearts."  That  use  of  "way" 
(without  even  an  apostrophe)  for  away  is  too 
bad ;  but  as  to  the  apostrophe,  Mr.  Root  may  be 
one  of  the  printer's  many  victims.  'The  crowds 
.  .  .  witnessed  the  boy  in  a  condition  such  as  is 
seldom  seen"  is  reporters'  English;  but  it  is 
to  be  feared  that  "usage"  will  before  long  justify 
the  reporter  in  doing  his  worst  with  the  verb 
witness. 

As  I  write  and  read,  material   constantly  ac- 


114 


WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 


cumulates.     If    the   reader   has  had   enough   of 
this  chapter,  it  is  easy  to  skip  what  follows. 


Evan  displayed  no  such  a 
presence.     (Meredith.) 

.  .  .  great  cutting  action 
affected  by  the  ocean  waves. 
(Shaler.) 

...  a  most  aggravating 
.  .  .  intervention.     (Morse.) 

.  .  .  these  distinguished 
writers  availed  of  the  larger 
opportunities  .  .  .     (Alden.) 

The  clangor  of  bells  far 
and  near  calls  the  townsfolk 
to  their  various  avocations, 
the  toiler  to  his  toil,  the  idler 
to  his  idleness,  the  miser  to 
his  gold.     (Aldrich.) 

There  has  always  been  a 
tendency  for  men  to  blame 
their  yielding  to  evil  tenden- 
cies on  something  for  which 
they  were  not  responsible. 
(Independent.) 


In    New    England,    this 
would  seem  illiterate. 

Even  in  a  scientific  book, 
it  is  well  to  take  pains. 


Mr.  Morse  has  this  mis- 
use more  than  once. 

"Colloquially,  in  the 
United  States."  (Standard.) 
Mr.  A.  also  has  "availed  of", 
passive. 

The  bell  generally  calls 
one  to  his  main  business,  not 
to  an  avocation.  Surely  the 
toiler's  vocation  is  to  toil.  To 
avoid  alliteration,  pursuits 
would  have  served. 

The  Standard  Diction- 
ary 1  authorizes  this  use  of 
blame  on  page  203,  and  on 
page  2367  very  properly 
condemns  it  as  "indefensible 
slang."     Away  with  it ! 


.  .  .  the   results   in   both 

It  sounds  better  in  Psalm 

cases      were       alike    .     .     . 

CXXXIX  than  in  a  modern 

(Morse.) 

book. 

Both  were  agreed  on  what 
no  one  at  that  time  denied, 


Why  not  They,  instead  of 
Both"?    Agreement,  ex  vi 


1  Edition  of  1909. 


MISUSED   WORDS  IN  GENERAL        115 


the  degeneracy  and  depravity 
of  the  age.  (Prof.  Walter 
Raleigh.) 

...  to  butcher  and  cook 
a  buffalo  that  they  had  killed. 
(Roosevelt.) 

...  in  their  minds  the 
cost  may  be  cheap.  (News- 
paper.) 

.  .  .  said  of  a  commodity, 
its  price,  or  the  place  where 
it  is  bought.  (Standard  Dic- 
tionary, under  cheap.) 

.  .  .  she  hoped  to  obtain 
some  menial  position  in  the 
household  of  one  of  her 
father's  friends.  Her  cousins, 
at  this,  made  a  great  outcry, 
protesting  that  none  of  their 
blood  should  so  demean  her- 
self   .  .  .     (Mrs.  Wharton.) 

All  plain-lands  of  this  or 
similar  nature  are  due  to 
either  of  two  simple  causes. 
(Shaler.) 


termini,  cannot  be  rationally 
affirmed  of  less  than  two. 


Killed,  then  butchered, 
then  cooked.  The  poor  beast 
would  certainly  be  dead  ! 

Anything  is  cheap  if  rela- 
tively little  is  given  for  it; 
if  "cost"  is  called  cheap,  it 
is  so  called  because  relatively 
much  is  given  for  it.  Such 
use  of  cheap  seems  improper. 


Mrs.  Wharton  perhaps 
meant  to  give  the  language 
of  the  cousins  ;  but  two  well- 
known  Massachusetts  authors 
and  a  writer  in  the  "  Con- 
tributors' Club  "  of  the  Atlan- 
tic use  demean  in  the  same 
way. 

Not  "indeterminately  or 
indifferently",  but  some  to 
one,  some  to  the  other.  The 
two  causes  differ  widely. 


I  come  next  to  "feel  ashamed",  used,  with 
"feel  glad"  and  "feel  sorry",  by  I  know  not 
how  many.  This  use  of  "feel"  for  be,  as  well 
as  for  think,  believe,  and  the  like,  I  take  the  liberty 
to  call  a  feminism.  I  don't  know  that  I  have 
any  support  in  the  dictionaries,  but  I  suppose  the 
name  is  quite  proper  in  itself. 


116 


WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 


I  notice  the  announce- 
ment of  a  new  edition  of 
"The  Two  First  Centuries 
of  Florentine  Literature"  by 
Professor  Pasquale  Villari 
(Aldrich.) 

"I  have  only  got  to 
write."     (Arnold.) 

Such  an  attempt  would 
be  impossible.  (Writer  on 
Rhetoric.) 

.  .  .  qualities  .  .  .  which 
one  would  suppose  impos- 
sible to  unite  .  .  .  (Craw- 
ford.) 

.  .  .  incapable  of  carry- 
ing little  else  besides  its  own 
rider.  (Cosmopolitan  Maga- 
zine.) 

.  .  .  allowed  neither  their 
personal  difference  of  opinion 
nor  this  abusive  outcry  to 
inveigle  into  his  mind  any 
prejudice  against  McClellan. 
(Morse.) 

Even  then,  and  for  some 
months  later,  he  missed  to 
recognize  Corona's  share  in 
it.  (Professor  Quiller-Couch, 
Oxon.) 

.  .  .  when  he  reports  the 
phenomena  he  reveals  the 
law  behind  it.     (Mabie.) 


I  am  not  acquainted  with 
the  work  in  question,  but  I 
trust  that  Professor  Villari 
makes  it  plain  .  .  .  how  both 
centuries  happened  to  be 
first.     (Aldrich.) 

So  he  translates  je  n'ai 
qu'd  tcrire. 

Yes,  a  figure  of  speech; 
but  an  unjustifiable  one. 


Inserting  it  after  "sup- 
pose" would  have  made  the 
sentence  correct  and  rational. 


Too  bad  to  call  for  re- 
mark ;  yet  too  bad  to  pass 
without  notice. 


One  may  inveigle  a  per- 
son ;  hardly  a  prejudice. 
To  inveigle  is  to  lead  astray 
by  blinding ;  prejudice  is 
blind  already,  by  the  nature 
of  it. 

He  uses  the  verb  miss  in 
this  way  more  than  once, 
failing,  apparently,  "to  recog- 
nize" the  difference  between 
it  and  fail. 

Here,  too,  the  proof-reader 
may  be  the  culprit  —  but 
strange  things  happen. 


MISUSED   WORDS  IN   GENERAL        117 


...  so  narrow,  so  preju- 
diced, so  limited  a  point  of 
view.     (Wilson.) 


According  to  mathemati- 
cal prejudice,  a  "  point  "  is 
always  extremely  "  limited." 


...  so  saturated  with  the 
point  of  view  of  a  governing 
class.     (Wilson.) 


"Saturated" 
"point"!     The 
cal     nonentity 
power. 


with  a 
mathemati- 
at     its     nth 


people 
ton.) 


.    popular  with  the 
[bis].     (Mrs.    Whar- 


And  with  whom  else,  pray, 
could  one  be  popular? 


.  .  .  every    muscle    and 
cord  and  pound  of  flesh  that 
their  bodies  possess.     (News- 
paper.) 


I  suppose  in  their  bodies 
would  express  the  thought; 
but  it  would  not  be  fine 
writing. 


.  .  .  [an  audience]  pos- 
sessing, probably,  a  much 
larger  proportion  of  men  .  .  . 
(A  Wellesley  professor.) 


The  good  lady  is  not 
thinking  of  the  possessions 
of  the  audience,  but  of  its 
composition. 


He  apparently  possesses 
such  a  moral  stand  that  he 
does  not  understand  the  in- 
famous accusation  he  is  mak- 
ing.    (Roosevelt.) 


Can  this  Standard-Oil 
man  transfer  his  "stand", 
and  give  possession?  The 
Colonel's  comic-opera  jingle 
recalls  Pinafore. 


Cardinal  O'Connell  speaks 
of  the  same  proposition  in 
one  sentence  as  a  "  prob- 
lem ",  and  in  the  next  as  a 
"  theorem." 


It  is  hard  to  forget  that 
a  problem  is  something  pro- 
posed to  be  done ;  a  theorem, 
something  proposed  to  be 
proved ! 


To  many  good  citizens 
there  seemed  some  reason  to 
think.   .   .     (Morse.) 


It  seemed  that  there  was 
and  there  seemed  to  be  are 
certainly  English. 


118  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

household        wares  Nothing  whatever  can  be 

packed  in  an  ox  team  .  .  .  packed  in  an  ox-team. 
(Morse.) 

the      whole     in-  He  means  not  the  whole 

habitants    of     a     continent  ones,  but "  the  whole  on  'em." 
(Jevons.) 


.  .  .  wrestling  new  prob-  "Wrastle      'im      down! 

lems  .  .  .     (Matthews.)  Thus  extremes  meet. 


)» 


XV 

SHALL  AND  WILL 

"  Have  you  got  over  that  [the  shall- and- will  difficulty] 
yet  ?  " 

"  No,"  Rob  said  sadly,  "  and  never  will."     (Barrie.) 

The  point  of  this  bit  of  dialogue  is  easily  seen. 
After  many  experiments,  I  conclude  that  every 
one  sees  the  point  of  the  story  about  the  scared 
Frenchman's  cry,  "I  will  drown!  Nobody  s'all 
'elp  me!"  The  main  difficulty,  I  am  sure,  lies 
not  in  lack  of  knowledge,  but  in  lack  of  the  will 
to  speak  pure  English.  What  I  say  applies  to 
intelligent  persons;  I  am  not  trying,  directly, 
to  reach  the  ignorant.  Correct  rules  for  the  use 
of  shall  and  will  are  given  in  many  books.  If  in 
general  my  readers  already  know  what  is  right, 
it  may  be  sufficient  to  say  that,  in  both  numbers, 
shall  in  the  first  person  and  will  in  the  second  and 
third  do  not  show  the  disposition  of  the  (careful) 
speaker;    while  will  in  the  first  person  and  shall 

119 


120 


WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 


in  the  second  and  third  do  show  his  disposition. 
The  uses  of  should  and  would  are  not  always  so 
simple ;  but  the  correspondence  of  should,  would, 
would  to  shall,  will,  will  is  generally  a  safe  guide. 


We  will  find  a  wide  dif- 
ference. (British  Officer,  in 
Harper's  Magazine.) 


So   we  in  America  have 
no  monopoly  of  this  error. 


We  who  are  unprepared 
to  murder,  cannot  know  when 
we  will  have  to  submit  to 
some  dishonorable  peace. 
(Prof.  George  M.  Stratton.) 


We  may  be  disposed  to 
submit,  but  are  not  disposed 
to  "have  to"  submit.  Of 
course  the  professor  knows 
English  —  why  not  use  it 
correctly  ? 


Will  I  have  to  pay  that 
personal  debt  ?     (Roosevelt.) 

I  will  simply  have  to  grin 
and  bear  it.     (Roosevelt.) 


The  question,  Colonel,  is 
not  concerning  your  disposi- 
tion. Your  own  "have  to" 
indicates  clearly  a  matter  of 
necessity. 


It  is  the  sense  that  even 
if  we  should  find  another 
Eden,  we  would  not  be  fit  to 
enjoy  it  perfectly,  nor  stay 
in  it  forever.     (Van  Dyke.) 


He  means  we  should  not 
befit.  He  has  not  expressed 
that  meaning.  Nor  has  he 
made  quite  clear  (to  me)  the 
syntax  of  "  stay." 


Were  this  class  of  writers 
to  fail  us  here,  we  would  have 
to  regret  the  impairment  of 
speech  thereby  produced. 
None  the  less  we  should 
have  to  accept  it,  at  least 
for  the  time  being.  (Louns- 
bury.) 


As  I  understand  him,  Pro- 
fessor Lounsbury  admits  that 
at  the  present  time  the  best 
usage  has  established  as  cor- 
rect the  distinction  taught 
in  the  books.  Here  he  ig- 
nores it,  and  in  the  next 
sentence  conforms  to  it. 


SHALL  AND   WILL  121 

He  would  have  to  watch  Lionel  dying.  He  would 
have  to  try  to  stave  off  Lionel's  death.  .  .  .  Then  he 
would  bury  Lionel.  .  .  .  After  that,  he  would  have 
to  watch  the  villagers  dying ;  and  then,  when  quite 
alone,  set  forth. 

And  to  what  would  he  set  forth  ?  What  had  life  to 
give  him  ? 

He  felt  that  if  Lionel  were  to  die,  he  would  go  mad. 
(Masefield.) 

For  every  "would"  except  the  last,  we  may 
assume  that  there  was  in  Roger's  thought  a 
shall.  If  Masefield  is  simply  reporting  Roger's 
thought,  should  is  the  word  to  represent  shall; 
yet  few  writers  would  venture  to  use  it.  If  he  is 
expressing  his  own  thought  about  Roger,  "would" 
is  right.  In  the  last  sentence  we  have  formal 
indirect  discourse.  If  Roger's  thought  was  "I 
should  go  mad",  should  is  right;  if  he  used  a 
mixed  form,  and  thought  "shall",  still  should 
is  right.     In  either  case,  "would"  is  wrong. 

The  difficulty  in  such  passages  is  rhetorical 
rather  than  grammatical.  Here,  the  use  of  should 
throughout  would  violate  ease.  In  shorter  pas- 
sages, the  case  is  different.  Perhaps  no  American 
writer  is  less  afraid  to  say  should  than  Mr.  Henry 
B.  Fuller. 

Professor  Lounsbury  says  that  Browning,  "in 


122 


WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 


deference  to  Landor ",  changed  "I  had  better 
not"  in  the  concluding  scene  of  Pippa  Passes  to 
"I  would  better  not."  So  much  the  worse  for 
Browning.  He  cut  out  a  good  thing  "in  deference 
to  Landor  ",  and  put  in  a  bad  thing  —  is  it  possible 
that  he  was  quite  awake !  But  I  was  going  to 
quote  from  Professor  Lounsbury  something  that 
interests  me  greatly : 

Furthermore,  the  advanced  student  of  English 
stands  in  danger  of  having  his  principles  corrupted  by 
the  example  of  the  earlier  authors  with  whom  he  makes 
himself  familiar.  In  the  very  greatest  of  these,  as  has 
already  been  seen,  the  distinction  [between  shall  and 
will]  is  not  found,  because  it  did  not  then  exist. 

Professor  Lounsbury's  own  words,  which  he  doubt- 
less has  in  mind,  are : 

Readers  of  our  version  of  the  Scriptures  and  of  the 
plays  of  Shakespeare  do  not  need  to  be  told  that  it 
did  not  exist,  certainly  as  a  binding  rule,  when  these 
works  appeared. 

So  the  point  is  taken  out  of  the  sentence  first 
quoted,  by  the  words  which  I  have  taken  the  lib- 
erty to  italicize  in  the  other.     Elsewhere  he  says : 

By  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century  it  had 
imposed  itself  upon  the  cultivated  speech,  and,  conse- 
quently, upon  the  literature,  of  England. 


SHALL  AND   WILL  123 

He  goes  on  to  quote  some  comments  upon  a  line 
in  the  Comedy  of  Errors  : 

Perchance  I  will  be  there  as  soon  as  you. 

He,  like  the  men  from  whom  he  quotes,  seems  to 
take  it  for  granted  that  will  is  here  used  in  the 
present-day  sense  of  shall;  but  any  one  who  is 
really  familiar  wTith  the  distinction  now  made 
between  the  two  auxiliaries  can  easily  see  that 
the  language  quoted  is  by  no  means  necessarily 
inconsistent  with  that  distinction.  In  other 
words,  if  it  were  admitted  that  the  distinction 
existed  in  Shakspere's  time,  it  would  be  easy 
enough  to  explain  this  line  as  no  exception  — 
so  easy  that  I  would  not  explain,  had  I  not  an 
ulterior  reason.  "I  may  choose  to  make  haste 
—  I  may  choose  to  take  my  time.  Perchance  I 
shall  choose  to  hurry;  perchance  I  will  hurry." 
As  a  man  says,  "I  don't  know  but  I  shall  be  mak- 
ing a  mistake,  but  I  think  I  will  risk  it." 

As  to  the  question,  now,  whether  or  not  the 
distinction  existed  in  Shakspere's  time :  I  will 
not  quote  from  Abbott's  "Shakespearian  Gram- 
mar"—  for  has  not  our  learned  friend  read  the 
grammarians  out  of  the  synagogue !  —  nor  hunt 
up  authorities  on  the  subject ;   but  I  will  mention 


124  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

a  few  facts.  Nobody,  probably,  will  deny  that 
the  rural  New  England  of  sixty  years  ago,  at 
least  that  part  of  it  which  had  kept  a  compara- 
tively pure  strain  of  the  old  "native"  stock, 
was  sound  on  shall  and  will.  Those  old  farmers 
simply  knew  no  better  than  to  use  these  auxili- 
aries right.  I  have  quoted  (Chapter  IV)  a 
statement  on  this  point  so  strong  that  I  think 
it  too  sweeping;  and  from  an  eminently  respect- 
able source,  to  say  the  least.  Now  the  settle- 
ment of  New  England  by  colonists  from  Old 
England  began  some  four  years  after  the  death 
of  Shakspere,  and  went  on  actively  during  a 
period  in  which  many  men  then  living  could 
remember  when  Shakspere  was  in  his  prime  and 
Elizabeth  on  the  throne,  and  when  Lear  had  not 
been  written  nor  the  "Accepted  Version"  of 
the  Bible  made.  Has  any  scholar  shown  that 
there  subsequently  arose  in  rural  New  England  a 
distinction  between  shall  and  will  to  which  the 
early  settlers  had  been  strangers?  Again,  the 
old  English  Bible,  in  the  version  of  1611,  is  not, 
strictly  speaking,  in  Elizabethan  English,  but 
largely  in  an  earlier  kind,  a  traditional  scripture 
English,  passed  on  to  us  —  let  us  be  thankful 
—  by  the  wise  conservatism  of  the  old  revisers ; 


SHALL  AND   WILL  125 

and  the  shall  and  will  of  those  God-fearing  old 
farmers,  be  it  observed,  were  not  corrupted  by 
their  familiarity  with  that  splendid  old  piece  of 
English. 

A  good  many  years  ago  I  made  a  somewhat 
careful  examination  of  the  play  of  Hamlet,  with 
reference  to  the  use  of  the  four  auxiliaries  under 
consideration.  I  said  in  a  paper  written  at  that 
time  that  these  auxiliaries,  used  as  such,  occurred 
in  the  play,  approximately,  485  times ;  that  they 
were  used  in  the  first  person,  singular  or  plural 
(where  the  real  difficulty,  if  any,  and  the  diver- 
gence of  usage  are  found),  about  195  times;  that 
in  all  but  four  of  these  195  cases  the  usage  was  in 
my  judgment  clearly  consistent  with  the  familiar 
rule  now  recognized  by  scholars  in  general.  Now 
for  the  four  cases : 

1.  In  Act  II,  Scene  2,  when  Polonius  says,  "I 
will  most  humbly  take  my  leave  of  you  ",  Ham- 
let answers,  "You  cannot,  sir,  take  from  me 
anything  that  I  will  more  willingly  part  withal." 
In  Hamlet's  speech  shall  might  be  substituted  for 
"will";  but  not,  I  think,  without  a  change  of 
meaning.  "I  will  get  along  without  you",  says 
Hamlet;  "I  am  extremely  willing  to  be  deprived 
of  your  company." 


126  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

2.  and  3.  In  Act  III,  Scene  1,  in  answer  to  the 
king's 

Good  gentlemen,  give  him  a  further  edge, 
And  drive  his  purpose  on  to  these  delights, 

Rosencrantz  says,  "We  shall,  my  lord";  and  to 
"Sweet  Gertrude,  leave  us  too,"  the  queen  an- 
swers, "I  shall  obey  you."  Here  will  might  take 
the  place  of  "shall",  but  it  does  not  follow  that 
the  two  are  equivalent.  The  King's  word  has 
settled  the  matter.  There  is  no  call  for  assertion 
of  the  courtiers'  disposition,  or  the  queen's.  The 
authority  of  the  king  and  the  etiquette  of  the 
court  make  it  proper  for  them  to  efface  themselves 
and  humbly  to  accept  the  fact:  "We  must,  and 
shall." 

4.  In  Act  IV,  Scene  2,  Hamlet  says,  "I  will 
win  if  I  can;  if  not,  I  will  gain  nothing  but  my 
shame  and  the  odd  hits."  The  second  "will" 
might  seem  to  be  quite  in  the  style  of  a  New- York 
commuter;  but  perhaps  Hamlet  makes  it  a 
part  of  his  consent:  "I  will  win  if  I  can;  if  not 
I  will"  take  the  consequences.  After  writing  in 
my  memorandum-book  the  suggestion  that  the 
second  auxiliary  is  "attracted"  to  agree  in  form 
with  the  first,  I  was  pleased  to  read  in  Abbott's 


SHALL  AND  WILL  127 

Grammar  that  "the  will  is  probably  used  by 
attraction  with  a  jesting  reference  to  the  previous 
will."  As  an  example  of  the  nonsense  that  gets 
into  the  commentaries,  I  note  that  in  the  valuable 
"Rolfe"  edition  of  Hamlet,  referring  to  the  king's 
"he  shall  with  speed  to  England  ",  the  editor  says, 
"For  shall  =  will,  see  Gr.  [Abbott's]  315"  — a 
"palpable"  miss;  for  shall  is  here  used  precisely  as 
we  now  use  it,  and  not  at  all  in  the  sense  of  will. 
I  wrote  in  another  paper  as  follows : 

To  the  best  of  my  belief,  based  upon  a  pretty  care- 
ful examination  of  the  play,  there  is  no  passage  in 
Twelfth  Night  that  even  appears  ...  to  use  will  for 
shall  or  would  for  should  in  the  first  person.  I  have 
gone  through  Julius  Caesar  and  reached  a  like  conclusion. 

I  had  made  some  examination  of  Othello. 
After  admitting  that  the  examination  had  not 
been  thorough,  I  said : 

I  believe,  however,  that  only  one  passage  in  the 
play  calls  for  remark  here.  In  Act  I,  Scene  1,  11.  56, 
57,  Iago  says, 

It  is  as  sure  as  you  are  Roderigo, 
Were  I  the  Moor,  I  would  not  be  Iago. 

The  meaning  of  this  ...  is  somewhat  difficult  and 
doubtful.  Rolfe  makes  no  offer  to  explain  it ;  Deighton 
says,  "I  would  behave  in  a  very  different  way  from 


128  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

that  which  circumstances  render  necessary  now"  — ■ 
an  explanation  easily  consistent  with  our  rule ;  Hud- 
son remarks  that  this  is  "perhaps"  an  instance  of 
would  for  should,  but  .  .  .  suggests  intentional  ob- 
scurity. 

The  papers  of  which  I  have  just  made  use 
were  not  written  for  publication.  I  give  their 
substance  for  what  it  may  be  worth.  I  will 
add  that  in  a  recent  reading  of  As  You  Like  It, 
Cymbeline,  and  part  of  Lear  I  have  been  impressed 
by  the  absence  of  difficulties  or  striking  peculiari- 
ties in  Shakspere's  use  of  the  auxiliaries  here 
considered.  His  dramatic  verse  is  not  common- 
place prose.  Of  course  it  differs  as  much  from 
such  prose  as  serious  dramatic  verse  written  in 
our  day  on  themes  like  his  would  differ  from  it. 
But  to  one  bred  in  the  old  New-England  speech 
his  use  of  the  auxiliaries  seems  easy  and  natural. 
The  late  Dr.  Hudson,  an  editor  of  Shakspere  by 
no  means  to  be  ignored,  has  it  repeatedly  that 
"could,  should,  and  would  were  often  used  indis- 
criminately in  Shakespeare's  time",  and  makes 
similar  statements  about  shall  and  will.  Observe 
the  qualifying  "often."  But  it  is  surprising 
how  little  an  old  (and  in  this  matter  attentive) 
reader   of   Shakspere's   greatest   plays   has  found 


SHALL  AND   WILL  129 

in  them,  at  least  in  the  use  of  the  first  person,  to 
confirm  or  illustrate  Hudson's  view. 

We  are  told  that  the  distinction  in  question 
is  slowly  passing  away.  Whatever  good  thing 
may  seem  to  be  passing  away,  it  is  for  us  to  resist 
its  passage.  In  the  Chicago  Tribune  the  fol- 
lowing paragraph  is  quoted  from  a  writer  in  the 
London  Times: 

Language  is  a  mighty  force,  a  turbulent  stream  flow- 
ing from  sources  beyond  our  control,  toward  an  ocean 
of  whose  further  shores  we  have  no  knowledge.  We 
cannot  "shut  up  the  sea  with  doors,  or  draw  out 
Leviathan  with  a  hook,"  and  it  would  seem  as  if  the 
individual  must  struggle  in  vain  against  the  great 
collective  will  of  the  community.  And  yet  that  col- 
lective will  is  not  altogether  a  blind  force ;  it  follows 
an  ideal  from  afar,  and  is  ultimately  governed  by  a  con- 
fused sense  or  "speech-feeling"  of  what  the  language 
ought  to  be.  More  and  more  the  character  of  this 
ideal,  the  soundness  of  this  speech-feeling,  depends 
upon  the  taste  of  the  educated  classes.  If  their  taste 
be  corrupted  the  language  will  suffer;  while  if  they 
encourage  the  right  fashions  the  set  of  the  language 
will  be  guided  in  the  right  direction.  When  that  is 
done,  detailed  and  individual  efforts  will  hardly  be 
necessary,  and  until  it  is  done  they  will  be  for  the 
most  part  unavailing. 

But  "detailed  and  individual  efforts"  do  influ- 
ence the  educated  classes ;    and  if  those  efforts 


130 


WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 


are  made  judiciously  in  the  interest  of  really 
good  English,  then,  to  some  extent  at  least, 
"the  set  of  the  language  will  be  guided  in  the 
right  direction."  This  or  that  good  usage  may 
cease  to  prevail,  but  on  the  whole  the  language 
will  be  the  better  for  whatever  well-directed 
effort  we  make  to  keep  it  good. 


1 


XVI 

PUNCTUATION 

Punctuation  will  have  to  be  considered  under 
Clearness  and  under  Ease ;  but  because  punctua- 
tion is  related  to  correctness  and  rationality,  a 
few  words  on  the  subject  will  not  be  out  of  place 
here. 

The  old-fashioned  excessive  use  of  commas  is 
seen  in  Newman's  sentence,  "I  only  say  that, 
prior  to  its  being  a  power,  it  is  a  good;  that  it 
is,  not  only  an  instrument,  but  an  end."  The 
first  comma  seems  to  do  no  good.  I  know  no 
excuse  for  the  comma  after  the  second  "is", 
unless  it  be  that  the  words  following  are  in  a  way 
parenthetical.  This  excuse  is  so  conventional 
and  weak  that  one  is  ashamed  to  mention  it ;  but 
if  we  take  it  seriously  for  a  moment,  we  must  see 
that  the  last  "parenthetical"  word  is  "but." 

As  punctuated,  this  passage  from  Meredith  is 
hardly  rational : 

131 


132  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

In  this  Nature  is  undoubtedly  our  guide,  seeing  that 
he  who,  while  feasting  his  body  allows  to  his  soul  a 
thought  for  the  morrow,  is  in  his  digestion  curst,  and 
becomes  a  house  of  evil  humours. 

And  this  (  I  cannot  give  credit)  : 

The  good  judgment  which  leads  people  who  have 
disputes,  which  might  lead  to  protracted  lawsuits  to 
resort  to  arbitration,  is  especially  needed  in  the  case  of 
labor  troubles. 

William  James : 

.  .  .  are  usually,  each  one  of  them,  in  love  with 
some  pet  "live  hypothesis"  of  his  own. 

The  commas  push  "each  one  of  them"  aside,  so 
to  speak,  and  emphasize  the  lack  of  concord 
between  the  pronoun  and  the  verb. 

The  printer  gets  a  rule  into  his  head,  and 
defies  the  exceptions.  So  the  Atlantic  makes  ( ?) 
a  writer  speak  of  "  ...  the  jolty,  clanking, 
smoky,  railroad  yards."  The  three  adjectives, 
of  course,  belong  to  "railroad  yards";  and  to 
put  a  comma  after  "smoky"  is  putting  a  comma 
between  an  adjective  and  its  substantive.  This 
crude  error  is  very  common.  The  printer,  appar- 
ently, has  his  way  in  'The  transport  captains 
were  civilians  for  the  time  being,  under  the  direc- 


PUNCTUATION  133 

tion  of  the  government,  and  were  amenable 
to  military  laws."  Again,  "These  sentences 
have  an  analogy  to  such  expressions  as,  Vest 
moi'  in  French  and  other  languages." 

Mr.  John  Graham  Brooks  says  that  "One  of 
the  most  careful  of  our  critics  who  studied  us  for 
three  years  felt  this  danger."  This  breathless 
sentence  raises  the  question  how  many  there 
were  of  the  "critics  who  studied  us  for  three 
years."  "Resolved,  that  public  drinking  places, 
which  are  the  haunts  of  vice,  are  dangerous  and 
should  be  eliminated."  The  newspaper  said 
this  resolution  was  submitted  at  the  brewers' 
convention.  If  so,  it  told  more  truth  than  the 
mover  meant  to  have  it  tell.  Mr.  Birrell  is 
clever,  but  this  sentence  from  "Obiter  Dicta" 
is  not  clever :  "Horace  used,  but  has  long  ceased 
to  be,  the  poet  of  Parliament."  The  printer, 
perhaps,  has  made  our  gifted  essayist  say  that 
Horace  used  the  poet  of  Parliament,  but  has  long 
ceased  to  be  said  poet. 

The  use  of  a  comma  between  subject  and 
predicate  is  painfully  common.  A  sweeping  rule 
against  this  use  might  now  and  then  work  hard- 
ship, especially  in  cases  where  the  comma  serves 
to   prevent   a   serious   formal   ambiguity;   yet   if 


134  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

such  a  rule  could  be  enforced,  it  would  prevent 
a  great  deal  of  bad  form.  The  ever-diverting 
daily  paper  gives  me,  "A  mere  man  seeking  a 
wife  among  wage  earners,  is  fortunate  indeed  to 
claim  a  wife  in  that  noble  profession,  a  nurse." 
One  more  comma,  or  one  less;  and  is  "nurse"  in 
apposition  with  "  profession  "  ?  Sir  Gilbert  Par- 
ker's extreme  case,  perhaps,  is  in  "  Why  had  this 
lady  of  the  Manor,  come  to  her?" 

Proper  division  of  words  at  the  end  of  the  line 
no  doubt  seems  to  many  intelligent  persons  a 
small  thing  —  else  why  is  it  so  recklessly  left 
to  the  reckless  printer?  In  high-class  publica- 
tions I  find  such  divisions  as  presence,  autho-rity, 
virt-ue,  cult-ure,  creat-ure,  err-or,  num-erous,  pro- 
blem, sob-erly.  If  authors  and  publishers  will 
"stand  for"  such  things,  small  blame  to  the 
printer  who  consults  his  convenience  or  an  arbi- 
trary rule. 

In  the  matter  of  compounds,  we  have  confusion 
worse  confounded.  As  to  whether  certain  expres- 
sions shall  be  regarded  as  phrases,  as  hyphen- 
compounds,  or  as  true  compounds,  there  is  no 
established  usage,  no  accepted  standard,  no  body 
of  rules  that  is  easy  of  application.  From  the 
nature  of  the  case,  formation  of  compounds  and 


PUNCTUATION  135 

of  combinations  which  may  or  may  not  be  treated 
as  compounds  is  constantly  going  on,  and  even 
the  best  printing-houses  do  not  seem  to  know 
what  to  do  with  them.  Our  forty  American 
"immortals",  or  the  philological  societies,  might 
be  worse  employed  than  in  taking  measures  for 
the  formulation  of  rules  for  compounds,  neither 
so  numerous  and  difficult  as  to  be  impractical 
nor  so  scanty  as  to  be  useless.  If  the  German 
double  hyphen  (used  by  the  Standard  Dictionary) 
were  in  general  use  for  hyphen-compounds,  it 
would  do  away  with  the  impossibility  of  indicating 
such  compounds  when  they  break  at  the  end  of 
the  printed  line. 

Established  and  consistent  usage  as  to  placing 
other  punctuation  before  or  after  quotation-marks 
is  greatly  to  be  desired.  The  question-mark, 
except  when  it  belongs  to  a  quoted  question,  is  of 
course  put  after  the  quotation-marks;  and  a 
similar  rule  is  followed  for  the  mark  of  exclama- 
tion. With  reference  to  the  semicolon  the  prin- 
ciple is  the  same,  and  usage  bids  fair  to  become 
uniform  in  accordance  with  it.  A  beginning,  at 
least,  has  been  made  in  England  of  applying  the 
same  principle  to  the  comma ;  and  the  only  objec- 
tion I  know  of  —  that  a  comma  after  the  quota- 


136  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

tion-marks  "does  not  look  right"  —  is  not 
weighty.  Let  us  hope  that  before  long  every 
mark  of  punctuation  that  does  not  belong  to 
that  which  is  quoted  will  be  placed  accordingly. 
Would  that  authors  might  be  made  to  believe 
that  it  is  their  duty  to  take  cognizance  of  the  small 
but  not  unimportant  matters  treated  in  this 
chapter.  With  them  lies  the  remedy,  if  they 
would  use  it,  for  the  abuses  of  punctuation.  On 
the  other  hand,  these  things  come  as  a  matter 
of  course  under  the  eye  and  handling  of  proof- 
readers of  every  degree.  Through  them,  pub- 
lishers ought  to  see  to  it,  even  if  authors  do  not 
insist  upon  it,  that  the  standard  be  raised  and 
something  like  uniform  efficiency  be  secured. 
And  now,  speaking  of  proof-readers,  shall  I  violate 
the  unity  of  this  chapter  too  flagrantly  if  I  bring 
in  here  a  few  cases,  outside  of  punctuation,  in 
which  they  might  have  made  authors  their  debt- 
ors? Perhaps  it  serves  two  popular  novelists 
right  to  let  one  say  "How  swiftly  she  tread!" 
and  the  other,  "He  departed,  ladened";  but 
think  of  the  scholarly  Newman  in  "the  state  in 
which  the  world  has  laid"  !  And  of  Mr.  Fuller: 
"He  lay  these  considerations  before  Donna  Vio- 
lante."     A   third   popular   novelist:     "He   stood 


PUNCTUATION  137 

for  a  second,  and  then  wearily  lay  him  down  to 
rest."  Stopford  Brooke:  'The  matters  of  which 
I  treat  of  here."  Somebody  in  the  newspaper : 
"...  genuine  and  salutatory  tariff  revision." 
Professor  Katharine  Lee  Bates  :  "Howell's  parlor 
farces."  Prof essor  Raleigh  :  "  It  was  an  invention 
on  which  North  modelled  his  best  writings,  and, 
so  modelling  it,  surpassed  his  teacher."  Mr. 
Cooper,  professing  to  quote  from  "the  genial 
Autocrat"  (expression  not  quite  original),  makes 
him  speak  of  "a  higher  law  in  grammar  not  to 
be  put  down  by  Andrew  [sic]  and  Stoddard." 
Woe  to  the  proof-reader  who  should  have  let 
that  get  into  the  bright  little  Doctor's  printed 
book !  Elsewhere  in  Mr.  Cooper's  book  is 
"Keat's"  for  Keats' 's.  And  the  highly  esteemed 
Independent,  in  its  "Survey  of  the  World": 
"For  quite  some  months  it  made  no  mark" ! 
By  contrast,  that  makes  one  think  of  William 
Cullen  Bryant  and  the  Evening  Post. 


CLEARNESS 


t 


XVII 

INTRODUCTORY 

Men's  hearts  are  better  than  their  heads. 
Right  feeling  is  more  common  than  straight 
thinking.  The  blunders  of  good  men  may  indeed 
be  worse  than  bad  men's  crimes. 

We  have  see"  ^a.t  thought  and  language  are 
inseparable.  If  clear  thinking  is  prerequisite  to 
lucid  expression,  lucid  expression  in  turn  reacts 
upon  thought  and  clarities  it.  So  far  as  our  liter- 
ary style  is  not  clear,  something  is  wrong  in  our 
mental  processes.  JJcTsomething  for  clearness, 
whether  in  thought  or  in  the  expression  of  thought. 
—  you  will  have  done  something  for  character. 

Doubtless  millions  of  the  dollars  that  are  wasted 
every  year  in  litigation  might  be  saved  if  men  had 
and  used  the  skill,  first  to  think  straight,  and 
then,  in  prosaic  laws  and  contracts  and  letters, 
to  give  clear  expression  to  their  thought.  Quite 
as  really,  if  in  less  evident  ways,  there  is  a  higher 

141 


( 


142  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

and  finer  economy  in  the  lucid  style  for  which 
we  plead ;  and  good  style  is  not  for  the  few  — 
it  is  for  every  one  of  us. 

Now,  coming  down  to  the  business  jn  hand, 
what  (Toes  the  principle  of  Clearness  require? 
The  precept  that  one  should  write  nqt_pnly  so 
that  he  can  be  understood,  but  so  that  he  cannot 
fail  to  be  understood,  is  at  least  as  old  as  Quin- 
tilian  and  the  first  century  of  our  era.  This  is 
good,  but  it  does  not  cover  the  ground.  The 
ideally  clear  sentence  is  not  only  easily__under- 
stood,  and  sure  to  be  understood  by  a  competent 
reader ;  further,  it  is  so  worded  and  arranged 
as  to  forbid  even  a  wilful  misconstruction.  It 
will  not  be  available  for  the  purposes  of  the  news- 
paper humorist.  There  may  be  really  no  room 
for  argument  as  to  the  meaning,  and  yet  a  sen- 
tence may  be  faulty  because  its  form  is  such  that 
it  can,  as  by  an  unscrupulous  advocate,  be  con- 
strued in  the  wrong  way.1  Not  only  substantial 
clearness  should  be  our  aim,  but  formal  clearness 
too,  and  economy  of  the  reader's  attention. 
Generally    speaking,    the    subject-matter    is    not 

1  Of  course  the  principles  of  Clearness  apply  to  every  more  com- 
prehensive unit,  as  well  as  to  the  sentence.  It  is  with  the  latter  that 
this  unambitious  work  has  chiefly  to  do. 


INTRODUCTORY  143 

difficult  in  itself;  to  create  difficulties  by  misuse 
of  language  is  a  gratuitous  offense.  If  in  any  case 
there  is  hard  thinking  to  be  done,  the  writer 
must  first  do  it  himself,  and  then  make  his  lan- 
guage a  help,  not  a  hindrance,  to  the  reader's 
doing  it. 

What  we  want,  here  as_eyf>T,ywherp.  is  a.  spirit 
and  habit  of  workmanship.  The  good  workman, 
recognizing  once  for  all  the  utility  of  good  work, 
does  not  continually  test  the  details  of  what 
he  does  by  reference  to  utility,  or  stingily  refuse 
to  finish  his  product  beyond  the  point  at  which  it 
can  be  made  to  serve  a  merely  utilitarian  purpose. 
He  nas  standards  of  excellence,  and  to  these  it 
is  simply  the  habit  of  his  life  to  conform.  And 
conformity  to  these  standards  is_to_him_noJiard- 
ship  —  on  the  contrary,  it  would  be  hardship 
to  be  in  any  way  compelled  to  disregard  his 
standards  or  fall  short  of  them.  Neither  does 
the  spirit  and  habit  of  workmanship  interfere 
with  spontaneity;  rather,  it  affordsthe_spiritual 
atmosphere  that  is  most  favorable  to  the-Jree 
and  happy  exercise  of  his  powers.  He  is  cheer- 
fully at  peace  with  himself. 

Let  me  digress  to  say  here  that  while,  even 
in  the  most  informal  treatment  of  our  subject, 


144 


WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 


it  is  necessary  to  have  some  plan  for  distribu- 
tion of  material  and  arrangement  of  the  dis- 
cussion, it  is  unavoidable  that  the  parts  of  the 
discourse  should  overlap.  Correctness  not  only 
has  relations  to  Clearness,  Ease,  and  Force;  it 
derives  its  chief  importance  from  those  relations. 
Clearness  is  intimately  related  both  to  Ease  and 
to  Force,  and  these  last,  as  we  shall  see  later,  are 
not  easily  separated  from  each  other  in  a  practi- 
cal study  of  the  subject.  Much  of  the  material 
already  used,  therefore,  might  have  been  reserved 
for  one  or  another  of  the  topics  yet  to  be  con- 
sidered, and  much  that  is  yet  to  be  used  will 
have  been  distributed  for  convenience  rather  than 
according  to  any  rigid  classification. 


XVIII 

PUNCTUATION  AND  CLEARNESS 

Picking  up  an  excellent  systematic  text-book 
on  Rhetoric,  I  find  that  Punctuation  is  not  even 
mentioned  in  the  index.  Another,  more  ele- 
mentary, teaches  that  the  chief  use  of  punc- 
tuation is  to  make  the  meaning  plain,  but 
seems  to  make  no  mention  of  it  in  the  formal 
discussion  of  Clearness.  Beingcontent  with  an 
elementary  and  informal  method,  I  begin  with 
punctuation  as  a^  requisite,  humble  and  simple 
but  indispensable,  for  the  construction  of  clearly 
written  sentences .  In  modern  use,  it  is  a  part  of 
them  wriiAnoT' 

It  is  not  easy,  and  fortunately  it  is  not  necessary, 
to  draw  the  line  between  formal  ambiguity  and 
real  obscurity.  In  some  cases  classification  de- 
pends upon  the  personal  equation  of  the  classifier. 
In  each  of  my  first  group  of  quotations  there 
is  at  least  some  lack  of  formal  clearness. 

145 


146 


WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 


Estates  inherited  through 
three  generations  are  rare  in 
the  United  States,  particu- 
larly great  estates  brought 
together  by  very  rich  men. 
(Charles  W.  Eliot.) 

.  .  .  the  sons  of  the 
warriors  rushed  into  the 
monasteries  and  bowed  side 
by  side  with  the  sons  of 
churl  and  serf,  not  only  be- 
fore the  altar  but  over  the  fur- 
row.    (Prof.  Vida  Scudder.) 

At  the  time  that  Painter's 
book  was  published,  the  ro- 
mantic drama  in  England 
was  not  born,  nothing  but 
heavy  imitations  of  Seneca 
and  Plautus  had  been  acted, 
and  the  Pallace  of  Pleasure 
[Painter's  book]  had  to  wait 
twenty  years  for  the  first  of 
the  playwrights  who  rifled  it. 
(Raleigh.) 

It  was  the  week  after  the 
Easter  holidays,  and  he  was 
journeying  along  with  Smart 
the  mare  and  the  light  spring 
cart,  watching  the  damp 
slopes  of  the  hillsides  .  .  . 
(Hardy.) 

.  .  .  the  observations  and 
inferences  of  many  men 
clubbed  together  into  a  com- 
mon fund.     (Coe.) 


No  doubt  the  ambiguity 
here  is  purely  formal ;  yet 
a  semicolon  after  "States" 
and  a  comma  after  "particu- 
larly" would  make  the  sen- 
tence better. 

But  there  were  no  furrows 
in  the  monasteries !  There 
are  easy  ways  out  of  such  con- 
fusion. Put  a  comma  after 
"monasteries",  deleting  the 
comma  after  "serf",  or  spar- 
ing it,  "according  to  taste." 

The  expression  "At  .  .  . 
published"  stands  to  modify 
too  many  clauses.  The  book 
couldn't  "wait  twenty  years " 
at  the  time  of  publication.  A 
semicolon,  or  division  of  the 
sentence  into  two,  might 
have  made  better  work.  Of 
the  emphatic  modifier  that 
modifies  too  much,  we  shall 
have  to  speak  further. 

The  words  along  with  are 
so  commonly  used  as  a  prepo- 
sitional phrase  that  if  "along  " 
is  to  be  taken  separately  as 
a  modifier  of  "journeying", 
it  should  be  followed  by  a 
comma. 

It  seems  more  natural  to 
think  of  men  than  of  things 
as  clubbed  together.  Comma 
after  "men." 


PUNCTUATION  AND   CLEARNESS       147 


Byron's  tales  which  natu- 
rally follow  are  more  full  of 
adventure  and  passion  .  .  . 
(Woodberry.)  [He  has  been 
speaking  of  Scott's  "tales  in 
verse."] 

It  is  not  alone  the  mur- 
dered Italians  in  New  Or- 
leans and  the  confessed  help- 
lessness of  the  government 
to  enforce  justice  or  the 
reverberations  from  Califor- 
nia over  the  Japanese  in  pub- 
lic schools  .    .    .   (Brooks.) 


Doubtless  the  relative 
clause  is  not  restrictive ;  but 
the  lack  of  punctuation 
makes  the  sentence  read  as 
if  it  were.  Two  commas  are 
needed. 

This  breathless  sentence 
makes  "reverberations"  seem 
like  a  second  object  of  "en- 
force." Perhaps  there  was 
a  reason  for  using  the  long 
word ;  I  believe  there  was 
none  for  neglecting  to  punc- 
tuate. 


If  the  reader  thinks  that  in  some  of  the  follow- 
ing extracts  the  ambiguity  is  merely  formal, 
very  possibly  he  is  right. 


.  .  .  the  surface  of  the 
natural  wall,  broken  only 
here  and  there  by  a  project- 
ing ledge,  .  .  .     (Crawford.) 

At  that  period,  when 
thoughts  of  invasion  had 
formerly  stirred  up  the  mili- 
tary fire  of  us  Islanders  .  .  . 
(Meredith.) 

But  a  study  of  Poe's 
analysis  of  The  Raven  — 
quite  aside  from  the  ques- 
tion whether  he  actually 
wrote  the  poem,  as  he  says 


The  context  shows  that 
the  construction  is  nomina- 
tive absolute.  The  punc- 
tuation denies  this. 

I  judge  that  "At  that 
period"  does  not  refer  to  a 
time  already  indicated.  If 
not,  the  comma  obscures  the 
meaning. 

I  suppose  nobody  doubts 
that  Poe  wrote  the  poem ; 
but  the  text  implies  a  doubt. 
Omit  the  first  comma,  pos- 
sibly inserted  by  a  composi- 


148 


WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 


he  did,  or  merely  succeeded 
in  making  himself  think  he 
did  so  .  .  .     (Cooper.) 

The  cheery  little  chip- 
munk, so  common  about 
Brown's  Flat,  is  common 
here  also,  and  perhaps  other 
species.     (Muir.) 

.  .  .  for  others,  the  dan- 
ger of  coming  to  want  is  so 
great,    the    deadly    habit    of 
endless     hoarding     for     the 
future     is     formed 
(Muir.) 

This  memorial,  it  is  pro- 
posed, to  have  take  shape  in 
a    training    college. 
(Newspaper.) 

Common  people  are  better 
booted  and  better  gloved  in 
America  than  in  any  Euro- 
pean country  I  know,  in 
spite  of  the  higher  price  for 
clothing  here,  the  men  wear 
ready-made  suits,  it  is  true, 
to  a  much  greater  extent,  but 
they  are  newer  and  brighter 
than  the  London  clerk's 
carefully  brushed,  tailor- 
made  garments.  (Wells, 
Tauchnitz  Edition.) 

All  through  the  ever- 
increasing  movement  of  life 
that  was  shaping  itself ; 
(Pater.) 


tor  wise  above  what  was 
written,  and  the  nonsense 
becomes  sense. 

Chipmunks  are  a  genus. 
"Other  species"  of  Chip- 
munks ?  The  first  comma  is 
misleading,  I  think,  and  the 
second  useless. 

This  makes  "for  others" 
depend  on  "is  formed."  I 
think  the  meaning  would  be 
shown  if  the  commas  were 
deleted  and  that  inserted 
after  "great." 

Delete  the  commas,  which 
are  for  the  moment  utterly 
misleading.  Such  punctua- 
tion is  hardly  civil. 

This  reads  exactly  like 
the  letter  of  an  uncultivated 
woman.  A  semicolon  after 
"here"  would  improve  the 
sentence  greatly,  and  do  away 
with  the  squint.  This  squint 
is  more  than  merely  formal, 
and  is  annoying,  to  say  the 
least,  to  the  reader  who  takes 
himself  and  his  author  seri- 
ously. But  why  should  there 
not  be  two  sentences? 


Pater's  "that"  is  de- 
monstrative. Elsewhere,  he 
squanders  commas ;  why 
omit  one  after  "life"  ? 


PUNCTUATION  AND  CLEARNESS      149 


The  very  book  out  of 
which  they  feed  their  private 
devotion  and  that  entire 
religion  out  of  which  Chris- 
tianity grew,  took  shape 
through  a  divine  inspiration 
which  found  its  highest  and 
fittest  organs  in  a  series  of 
political  and  social  preachers. 
(Rauschenbusch.) 

.  .  .  Saskatchewan  and  Al- 
berta each  sent  almost  unan- 
imous Liberal  contingents 
to  Ottawa  with  great  ma- 
jorities. The  Provincial  elec- 
tions .  .  .  have  lately  been 
held  when  the  Conservative 
party  only  escaped  annihila- 
tion.    (Newspaper.) 

The  broad  shallow  streams 
these  meadows  belong  to  are 
mostly  derived  from  banks 
of  snow  and  because  the  soil 
is  well  drained  in  some  places, 
while  in  others  the  dam 
rocks  are  packed  close  and 
caulked  with  bits  of  wood 
and  leaves,  making  boggy 
patches ;  the  vegetation,  of 
course,  is  correspondingly 
varied.     (Muir.) 

He  saw  the  evil  in  the  life 
of  men  and  their  sufferings, 
but  he  approached  these  facts 
purely  from  the  moral  point 
of  view.     (Rauschenbusch.) 


The  absence  of  a  comma 
after  "devotion"  makes  "re- 
ligion" stand  as  second  ob- 
ject of  "feed."  Insert  that 
comma,  and  the  comma  after 
"grew"  is  no  longer  offen- 
sive (between  subject  and 
predicate) ,  but  helps  to  make 
the  sentence  easy,  clear,  and 
effective. 

Did  "each"  send  more 
than  one  contingent?  Were 
the  "majorities"  sent  with 
the  "contingents"?  Is  the 
last  clause  really  temporal  ? 
Two  commas  would  help  the 
sentences,  but  not  make  them 
good. 


This  sentence  is  not  only 
breathless,  but  hardly  intel- 
ligible as  it  stands.  Per- 
haps a  semicolon  after 
"snow"  and  a  comma  after 
"patches"  would  make  it 
say  what  the  writer  meant. 
One  gets  a  little  out  of 
patience  when  so  able  a 
writer  lets  his  work  go  before 
the  public  in  such  shape. 


A  comma  after  "men" 
would  give  a  plain  sense. 
An  in  after  "and"  would 
give  a  plain  sense.  I  am 
not  quite  sure  of  the  meaning. 


150 


WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 


No  intelligent  writer,  with  a  proper  sense  of 
what  is  due  to  himself  and  to  his  readers,  can 
without  blame  neglect  the  subject  of  punctua- 
tion. Because  the  writer  knows  better  and 
cares  more  than  anybody  else  about  the  thought 
he  wishes  to  convey,  he  cannot  safely  leave  punc- 
tuation to  the  publishing-office,  however  excellent 
and  well-equipped  that  may  be. 


XIX 

FORMAL  CLEARNESS   (I) 

Oh,  reform  it  altogether! 

Why  not  "reform  it  altogether"  —  this  prac- 
tice of  writing  obscurely  or  ambiguously  !  Ham- 
let, whatever  else  he  had  or  lacked,  certainly 
had  brains.  It  is  plain  that  as  a  dramatic  critic 
he  expressed  the  views  and  spirit  of  Shakspere 
himself;  and,  evidently  enough,  when  Shakspere 
really  took  the  trouble  to  be  critical  he  had  small 
patience  with  weak-kneed  compromise.  "Ab- 
stain from  every  form  of  evil",  says  the  Revised 
Version.  Doubtless  this  is  correct;  but  "Ab- 
stain from  all  appearance  of  evil"  is  good  advice, 
even  if  the  apostle  Paul  did  not  say  it.  I  believe 
that  in  writing  it  is  well  to  abstain  from  all, 
even  the  most  superficial  and  purely  formal, 
appearance  of  ambiguity.  If  this  is  a  counsel 
of  perfection,  so  much  the  better.  If  English 
is  to  be  written  nobly  rather  than  commercially 

151 


152 


WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 


and  cynically,  writers  must  have  ideals  and  stand 
by  them. 

What  Newman  said  of  the  writers  of  his  time, 
as  compared  with  greater  writers  of  an  earlier 
time,  might  with  some  truth  be  said  of  twentieth- 
century  authors,  compared  with  Newman  him- 
self. He  is  likely  to  be  remembered  when  these 
clever  ones  are  forgotten ;  but  I  am  embarrassed 
with  an  accumulation  of  transcripts  from  his 
pages  —  and  few  pages  at  that.  Here  are  some 
of  them : 


It  is  impossible,  gentle- 
men, to  doubt  that  a  future 
is  in  store  for  Ireland,  for 
more  reasons  than  can  here 
be  enumerated. 

Bacon  was  too  intellectu- 
ally great  to  hate  or  to  con- 
temn the  Catholic  faith ;  and 
he  deserves  by  his  writings 
to  be  called  the  most  ortho- 
dox of  Protestant  philoso- 
phers. 

The  Rationalist  makes 
himself  his  own  centre,  not 
his  Maker ;  he  does  not  go 
to  God  but  he  implies  that 
God  must  come  to  him. 


The  form  of  the  sentence 
indicates  one  meaning ;  the 
probability  is  in  favor  of  an- 
other. The  sentence  lacks 
both  clearness  and  force. 

Does  "too"  modify  "in- 
tellectually", or  "intellectu- 
ally great"?  Formal  clear- 
ness and,  I  think,  ease  would 
have  been  served  by  writing 
too  great  intellectually  or  in- 
tellectually too  great. 

The  ambiguity  is  purely 
formal,  but  it  is  a  blemish. 
It  would  be  very  easy  to 
make  the  first  statement  for- 
mally clear. 


...  he    knows    when    to  Why    not    avoid    formal 

be    serious    and     when    to      ambiguity  and  gain  ease  by 


FORMAL  CLEARNESS  (I) 


153 


trifle,  and  he  has  a  sure  tact 
which  enables  him  to  trifle 
with  gracefulness  and  be 
serious  with  effect. 


saying  gracefully  instead  of 
"with  gracefulness"?  That 
word  gracefulness  is  a  good 
word  to  avoid. 


"And  one  might  even  replevin  earlier  examples 
from  earlier  authors  of  earlier  languages  —  from 
Aristophanes,  for  instance."  This  might  appeal 
to  the  legal  mind.  But  how  shall  we  construe  the 
first  "  from  "  ?  And  why  should  so  clever  a  student 
of  English  as  Professor  Brander  Matthews  use  the 
ambiguous  phrase  "authors  of  earlier  languages"  ? 
William  James  and  Professor  Coe  are  at  one  in 
"  .  .  .  to  whom  the  world  is  far  more  like  a  steady 
den  [sic]  of  fear  than  a  continual  fountain  of  de- 
light", and  "...  the  whole  of  work  will  be  trans- 
formed into  something  more  like  play  than  a  con- 
test for  food."  They  would  perhaps  have  thought 
it  pedantry  to  repeat  the  preposition  "like." 

Three  bits  from  Mr.  John  Graham  Brooks : 


Nor  can  it  be  allowed  to 
pass  that  this  glorifying  is  in 
no  way  exclusive  of  the  West. 

Critics  have  said  that 
democracy  was  conceived  of 
by  de  Tocqueville  as  a  fa- 
tality ;  that  it  was  bearing 
down  upon  us  with  forces  so 
irresistible  .  .  . 


The  context  shows  that 
he  cannot  mean  what  he 
says. 

The  second  substantive 
clause,  which  ought  to  repre- 
sent a  second  affirmation  of 
the  critics,  is  apparently  in- 
tended to  set  forth  De 
Tocqueville's  conception. 


154 


WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 


About  every  phase  of  our  The  preposition  "about" 

life  and  institutions,  this  is  is  ill  chosen ;   the  more,  as  it 

what    the    outside    observer  might  be  taken  at  first  glance 

may  do  for  us.  for  an  adverb. 


Miss  Addams  has,  "This  movement  must 
tend  to  decide  upon  social  matters  from  the 
social  standpoint.  Until  then  ..."  Until 
when  ?  No  time  has  been  mentioned.  More- 
over no  one  "movement"  has  been  mentioned 
in  the  near  context.  Also,  "...  to  attain  to 
any  mental  or  moral  integrity  for  ourselves,  or 
any  such  hope  for  society."  Does  she  mean 
mental  or  moral  hope  ? 

Dr.  Van  Dyke,  whose  reputation  is  so  assured 
that  possibly  he  can  afford  to  be  careless,  says 
that  "...  nothing  could  be  more  unlike  .  .  . 
Longfellow  than  to  put  his  feet  in  the  wrong 
place,  either  on  the  table,  or  in  his  verse."  I 
am  sure  that  if  Longfellow  put  his  feet  on  the 
table  he  put  them  in  the  right  place  on  the  table. 
I  am  sorry  I  cannot  give  due  credit  for  "His 
reform  of  the  schools  is  admirable  .  .  .  [sentence 
of  thirty-four  words].  General  Wood  has  in- 
creased the  salaries  of  the  teachers,  and  provided 
for  the  teaching  of  the  English  language  therein." 
Utinam  "in"  doctoribus  lingua  Anglica  doceaturl 


FORMAL  CLEARNESS  (I)  155 

"Milk  is  a  perfect  food  for  the  young  of  its  kind", 
says  a  popular  writer  who  in  more  senses  than 
one  writes  "illy.'*  "The  members  of  the  House 
.  .  .  were  seated  .  .  .  the  gentlemen  present  were 
standing."  These  words  of  an  eminent  historian 
were  not  intended,  I  think,  for  a  sly  joke. 

A  United  States  Commissioner  of  Education 
wrote:  "These  doctors  find  it  difficult  to  earn 
their  daily  bread  at  times."  The  President  of 
Yale  (whose  English  seems  to  me  generally  ad- 
mirable in  its  straightforward  business-like  sim- 
plicity) says  that  "Upon  them  rests  the  responsi- 
bility .  .  .  for  the  maintenance  ...  of  athletic 
purity  and  fairness  in  the  dealings  of  each  uni- 
versity with  its  rivals."  "Athletic  purity"  is 
indeed  better  than  the  feeble  kind.  Professor  A. 
S.  Hill  quotes  George  P.  Marsh  as  saying  of  the 
possessive  of  English  nouns:  "And,  of  course, 
we  generally  limit  the  application  of  this  form 
to  words  which  indicate  objects  capable  of  pos- 
sessing or  enjoying  the  right  of  property,  in  a 
word,  to  persons,  or  at  least  animated  and  con- 
scious creatures  .  .  ."  —  to  words,  in  a  word,  to 
persons.  Colonel  Roosevelt  writes  of  some  one 
who  "fell  in  love  with  the  woman  he  soon  after- 
wards married  during  the  siege."     In  one  of  Mr. 


156  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

Churchill's  novels:  'You  must  eat  enough, 
Lige,'  she  said.  He  was  finished  in  an  incredibly 
short  time."  What  finished  him?  Mr.  Muir, 
"It  screams  something  like  a  crow."  He  doubt- 
less means  somewhat. 

"For  instance,"  writes  Professor  Rauschen- 
busch,  "the  position  of  woman  has  been  elevated 
through  the  influence  of  Christianity,  but  by  its 
indirect  and  diffused  influences  rather  than  by 
any  direct  championship  of  the  organized  Church." 
Just  such  a  formal  ambiguity  as  the  Latin  genitive 
would  give  us;  but  ambiguity  is  a  serious  weak- 
ness in  the  Latin  language,  and  English  has 
weaknesses  enough  of  its  own.  Easy  to  say  on 
the  part  "of  the  organized  Church."  Elsewhere 
he  says,  "No  man  is  a  follower  of  Jesus  in  the 
full  sense  who  has  not  through  him  entered  into 
the  same  life  with  God.  But  on  the  other  hand  no 
man  shares  his  life  with  God  whose  religion  does 
not  flow  out,  naturally  and  without  effort, 
into  all  relations  of  his  life,  and  reconstructs 
everything  that  it  touches."  I  have  italicized 
part  of  the  quotation.  The  italicized  expressions 
are  so  far  ambiguous  that  I  could  not  be  sure  of 
their  meaning  without  the  context.  The  finite 
verb    "reconstructs"    should    of    course    be    an 


FORMAL   CLEARNESS   (I)  157 

infinitive,  coordinate  with  "flow."  I  am  quoting 
not  from  a  first  impression,  but  from  the  ninth 
reprint. 

An  Englishman,  writing  in  Harper's  Weekly: 
"The  signal-staff  enjoy  no  sinecure,  and  even 
when  idly  in  harbor  fluttering  bunting  and  flicker- 
ing semaphores  indicated  that  the  Admiral  was 
circulating  orders."  The  abridged  clause  is  neatly 
adapted  to  mislead  the  reader  into  taking  "flut- 
tering" as  transitive;  "idly"  should  for  clearness 
have  something  expressed  with  which  to  construe 
it;  a  comma  after  "harbor"  would  have  been 
of  use.  The  sentence  is  exasperatingly  journal- 
istic. In  ".  .  .  he  has  freedom  for  it  only  in 
the  weary  evening  hours  after  work  is  done,  on 
Sundays  and  holidays",  Professor  Vida  Scudder 
has  nodded,  perhaps  literally.  One  way  to  make 
the  sentence  presentable  would  be  to  put  an  or 
before  "on  Sundays."  "It  is  safe  to  say",  writes 
Professor  Lounsbury,  "...  that  there  is  not  a 
classic  author  in  our  speech  who  has  not  employed 
it,  and  in  many  instances  employed  it  frequently." 
I  think  it  "safe  to  say"  that  he  does  not  mean 
that  every  "classic  author  in  our  speech"  has 
"in  many  instances  employed"  the  usage  in 
question  "frequently."     He  means,  rather,  that 


158  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

they  have  all  employed  it,  and  many  of  them 
have  employed  it  frequently.  Of  course  this  view 
squarely  conflicts  with  the  professor's  statement ; 
but  the  usage  of  good  authors,  which  he  holds 
so  dear,  by  no  means  justifies  one  in  assuming, 
against  the  evidence,  that  they  mean  just  what 
they  say. 

"B.  L.  T."  of  the  Chicago  Tribune,  whose 
good-humored  satire  is  quietly  and  constantly 
helping  the  cause  of  good  English,  said  that  "As 
a  candidate  Gov.  Wilson's  strength  reached  its 
highest  point  the  day  after  the  Baltimore  con- 
vention." No  one  questions  the  correctness  of 
the  sentence,  As  a  candidate  Governor  Wilson  was 
strong.  Here  As  a  candidate  is  a  modifier  of  the 
predicate,  as  approaching  a  prepositional  use 
(Standard  Dictionary),  and  candidate  and  the 
subject  of  the  sentence  refer  to  the  same  person. 
The  usage  is  quite  intelligible  and  established. 
In  the  sentence  quoted  above,  we  are  expected 
to  identify  "candidate"  not  with  the  subject, 
but  with  a  genitive  dependent  on  the  subject. 
Grammatical  relations  apparently  alike  should 
express  like  relations  of  thought. 

It  may  be  affirmed  that  "As  a  candidate" 
depends    on   the   genitive    "Gov.    Wilson's", — 


FORMAL  CLEARNESS   (I) 


159 


the  subject  being  equivalent  to  The  strength  of 
Gov.-Wilson-as-a-candidate.  Such  a  relation  would 
do  very  well  in  a  highly  inflected  language,  in 
which  we  should  have  the  genitive  of  the  word 
for  candidate  (Latin,  candidati)  agreeing  in  form 
with  the  other  substantive.  But  English  is 
the  opposite  of  a  highly  inflected  language.  A 
different  argument  would  be  that  we  all  make, 
very  properly,  statements  like  Governor  Wilson  s 
strength  as  a  candidate  reached  its  highest  point, 
and  therefore  need  not  stick  at  the  transfer  of 
the  phrase  as  a  candidate.  The  answer  is  that 
Governor  Wilson's  strength  as  a  candidate  is  either 
grammatical  or  idiomatic,  while  the  locution  in 
question  is  neither. 

Further  illustrations  may  enrich  this  chapter 
for  some  readers. 


.  .  .  would  not  have  di- 
vided their  forces,  with  one 
army  occupying  General 
McClellan,  while  they  at- 
tempted the  capital  he  had 
left  uncovered  with  the  other. 
(Lowell.) 


A  real  and  obvious  fault 
here,  and  one  that  might 
easily  have  been  remedied 
by  transposing  a  phrase  :  .  .  . 
while  with,  the  other  they  at- 
tempted the  capital  he  had  left 
uncovered. 


We  have  to  build  every- 
thing in  this  world  of  domes- 
tic joy  and  professional  suc- 
cess, everything  of  a  useful, 


One  reads  "this  world  of 
domestic  joy  ",  perhaps  with 
no  suspicion  that  his  phras- 
ing is  wrong.     He  will  soon 


160 


WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 


honorable  career,  on  bodily 
wholesomeness  and  vitality. 
(Eliot.) 

He  knew  more  of  proph- 
ets and  apostles  than  mod- 
ern doctors  of  divinity. 
(Allen.) 

He  easily  reached  the  con- 
clusion that  men  live  to  be 
old  because  they  do  not  sleep 
late,  instead  of  perceiving 
that  men  do  not  sleep  late 
because  they  are  old.  (Al- 
drich.) 

It  was,  of  course,  possible 
for  him  to  receive  only  well- 
based  or  well-worded  com- 
pliments.    (Higginson.) 

Let  no  nation  think  itself 
safe  in  being  merely  right, 
unless  its  captains  are  in- 
spired and  sustained  by  a 
sense  thereof.     (Lowell.) 

Will  the  realistic  or  ro- 
mantic type  of  fiction  be  best 
fitted  to  the  needs  of  the  com- 
ing democracy  ?     (Perry.) 

There  is  beauty,  too,  of 
the  Oriental  and  Western 
kind,  and  plenty  of  it. 
(Crawford.) 


be  undeceived,  but  why 
should  he  have  been  misled 
at  the  beginning? 

Of  omitted  before  "mod- 
ern" —  repetition  avoided. 
Does  he  always  sacrifice  so 
much  for  ease? 

A  peculiar  case  of  squint. 
Positives  instead  of  nega- 
tives —  e.g.,  rise  early  for 
"do  not  sleep  late"  —  would 
have  made  the  sentence  for- 
mally clear.  Here,  again,  the 
spoken  English  would  be  clear. 

He  might  .  .  .  receive 
would  convey  the  meaning, 
without  suggesting  that  he 
could  receive  no  others. 

The  "archaic"  word 
"thereof"  should  mean  of 
being  merely  right.  More- 
over being  personally  right 
may  not  be  Lowell's  meaning. 

The  contrasted  types  are 
the  realistic  and  the  romantic. 
He  might  have  said  realistic, 
or  romantic  fiction. 

If  he  means  two  kinds  of 
beauty,  not  one  composite, 
why  not  both  Oriental  and 
Western  ? 


Undoubtedly,  ambiguity  that  is  purely  formal 
is  not  the  worst  of  faults.     When  anything  desir- 


FORMAL  CLEARNESS   (I)  161 

able  is  to  be  gained  by  it,  or  anything  undesirable 
(work  always  excepted)  is  to  be  avoided,  then 
is  the  time  to  weigh  reasons.  If  anything  may 
be  added  to  the  gayety  of  nations  by  the  clever 
use  of  it,  well  and  good.  But  I  wish  to  record 
my  sober  and  deliberate  conviction  that  with- 
out good  reason,  lack  of  clearness  in  form  should 
never  be  tolerated. 


XX 

FORMAL  CLEARNESS  (II):  ONLY 

In  most  cases  no  serious  doubt  as  to  the  mean- 
ing arises  from  the  position  of  the  adverb  only; 
hence  this  word  comes  under  Formal  Clearness. 
The  following  illustrations  are  drawn  from  many 
respectable  British  and  American  authors,  more 
than  half  of  whom  are  writers  of  high  rank. 
Names  are  omitted,  that  each  passage  may  be 
considered  on  its  merits.  With  the  same  end  in 
view  I  neither  quote  nor  propound,  at  this  point, 
any  theory  as  to  reasons  for  keeping  the  adverb 
out  of  its  logical  place.  The  second  of  the  parallel 
columns  shows  the  passages  rewritten,  with  only 
put  next  to  that  with  which  it  is  supposed  to 
belong  in  thought. 


She  could  only  reach  his 
depths  by  reminding  him  of 
some  things  he  had  put  him- 
self out  of  the  way  of  think- 
ing on. 


She  could  reach  his  depths 
only  by  reminding  him  of 
some  things  he  had  put  him- 
self out  of  the  way  of  think- 
ing on. 


162 


FORMAL   CLEARNESS   (II):    ONLY      163 


It  can  only  be  changed  by 
the  same  power  which  made 
it. 


It  can  be  changed  only  by 
the  same  power  which  made 
it. 


If  a  thing  only  exists  in 
order  to  be  graceful,  do  it 
gracefully  or  do  not  do  it. 


If  a  thing  exists  only  in 
order  to  be  graceful,  do  it 
gracefully  or  do  not  do  it. 


Why  take  something 
which  was  only  meant  to  be 
respectful  and  preserve  it 
disrespectfully  ? 


Why  take  something 
which  was  meant  only  to  be 
respectful  and  preserve  it 
disrespectfully  ? 


.  .  .  the  beasts  that  perish 
are  more  hygienic  than  man, 
and  man  is  only  above  them 
because  he  is  more  conven- 
tional. 


.  .  .  the  beasts  that  perish 
are  more  hygienic  than  man, 
and  man  is  above  them  only 
because  he  is  more  conven- 
tional. 


...  he  was  only  saved 
from  rough  handling  by  the 
interposition  of  the  vicar. 

His  cheery  courtesy  was 
only  disturbed  when  he  be- 
came conscious  .  .  . 


...  he  was  saved  from 
rough  handling  only  by  the 
interposition  of  the  vicar. 

His  cheery  courtesy  was 
disturbed  only  when  he  be- 
came conscious  .  .  . 


.  .  .  that  mysterious  some- 
thing only  found  in  those 
who  have  been  mayors. 

Yet  it  has  only  been  by  a 
great  effort  of  will  that  I 
have  been  able  .  .  . 


.  .  .  that  mysterious  some- 
thing found  only  in  those 
who  have  been  mayors. 

Yet  it  has  been  only  by  a 
great  effort  of  will  that  I 
have  been  able  .  .  . 


Most  families  lived  only 


in  one  room. 


Most  families  lived  in  only 
one  room. 


164 


WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 


The  boy  knows  that  his 
kite  will  only  rise  when  the 
wind  blows  hard  against  it. 

The  fulness  of  the  calamity 
can  only  be  seen  when  its 
consequences  are  considered. 

The  large  jet-black  ants 
are  only  ticklish  and  trouble- 
some when  one  is  lying  down 
under  the  trees. 


The  boy  knows  that  his 
kite  will  rise  only  when  the 
wind  blows  hard  against  it. 

The  fulness  of  the  calamity 
can  be  seen  only  when  its 
consequences  are  considered. 

The  large  jet-black  ants 
are  ticklish  and  troublesome 
only  when  one  is  lying  down 
under  the  trees. 


...  I  said  that  the  sea 
could  only  be  painted  by 
more  or  less  dexterous  con- 
ventionalisms .  .  . 

...  we  can  only  say  that 
the  choice  is  right,  when  we 
feel  that  the  means  are 
effective  .  .  . 

The  thought  of  Ottalie 
gave  him  a  fine  sense,  only 
properly  enjoyed  in  youth,  of 
his  own  superiority  to  the 
world. 

Will,  in  the  first  person, 
denotes  intention,  and  you 
can  only  know  your  own 
intentions. 


...  I  said  that  the  sea 
could  be  painted  only  by 
more  or  less  dexterous  con- 
ventionalisms .  .  . 

...  we  can  say  that  the 
choice  is  right,  only  when 
we  feel  that  the  means  are 
effective  .  .  . 

The  thought  of  Ottalie 
gave  him  a  fine  sense, 
properly  enjoyed  only  in 
youth,  of  his  own  superiority 
to  the  world. 

Will,  in  the  first  person, 
denotes  intention,  and  you 
can  know  only  your  own 
intentions. 


Coming  to  consciousness 
of  yourself  can  only  bring  to 
light  weakness  in  case  the 
weakness  already  exists  in 
you. 


Coming  to  consciousness 
of  yourself  can  bring  to  light 
weakness  only  in  case  the 
weakness  already  exists  in 
you. 


FORMAL  CLEARNESS   (II)  :    ONLY      165 


There  are  those,  again, 
who  are  good  enough  to  grant 
that  the  Catholic  Church 
fostered  knowledge  and 
science  up  to  the  days  of 
Galileo,  and  that  she  has 
only  retrograded  for  the  last 
several  centuries. 


There  are  those,  again, 
who  are  good  enough  to  grant 
that  the  Catholic  Church 
fostered  knowledge  and 
science  up  to  the  days  of 
Galileo,  and  that  she  has 
retrograded  only  for  the  last 
several  centuries. 


Viewed  in  itself  .  .  .  that 
principle  is  simply,  undeni- 
ably true ;  and  it  is  only 
sophistical  when  it  is  carried 
out  in  practical  matters  at  all. 

...  if  they  could  only 
open  their  mouths  on  their 
own  special  subject  .  .  . 

.  .  .  enemies  of  our  creed 
have  allowed  that  he  [Shak- 
spere]  is  only  not  a  Catholic, 
because,  and  as  far  as,  his 
times  forbade  it. 

.  .  .  would  only  be  prac- 
tically true  of  a  com- 
munity .  .  . 

He  could  only  help  society 
to  continue  doing  right  by 
himself  doing  what  society 
considered  wrong. 


Viewed  in  itself  .  .  .  that 
principle  is  simply,  undeni- 
ably true;  and  it  is  sophis- 
tical only  when  it  is  carried 
out  in  practical  matters  at  all. 

...  if  they  could  open 
their  mouths  only  on  their 
own  special  subject  .  .  . 

.  .  .  enemies  of  our  creed 
have  allowed  that  he  [Shak- 
spere]  is  not  a  Catholic,  only 
because,  and  as  far  as,  his 
times  forbade  it. 

.  .  .  would  be  practically 
true  only  of  a  community  .  .  . 

He  could  help  society  to 
continue  doing  right  only  by 
himself  doing  what  society 
considered  wrong. 


A  text-book  says  that  "The  rule  .  .  .  that 
only  should  immediately  precede  the  word  it 
modifies   is   not   observed    strictly   by   the   best 


166  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

speakers  and  writers,  the  position  being  deter- 
mined by  considerations  of  rhythm  as  well  as 
by  considerations  of  clearness."  I  have  gone 
somewhat  rapidly  over  these  twenty-four  quota- 
tions, and  find  that,  according  to  my  judgment, 
in  nineteen  cases  the  correct  form  has  either  a 
better  prose  rhythm  than  the  original  or  an  equally 
good  one,  while  in  five  the  original  has  the  better. 
On  the  other  hand,  in  a  large  majority  of  cases 
the  original  gives  somewhat  more  prominence  to 
the  only.  These  results,  so  far  as  they  have  any 
weight,  go  to  confirm  my  previous  impression, 
that  "considerations  of  rhythm"  are  not  gen- 
erally decisive,  but  the  writer,  having  the  only 
uppermost  in  his  mind,  by  a  perhaps  quite  un- 
conscious choice  puts  it  "at  the  head  of  the 
procession." 

Here  is  what  seems  to  me  to  be  the  truth  about 
this  word  only:  To  place  it  where  on  general 
principles  it  belongs,  one  must  be  much  more 
careful  than  the  ordinary  speaker  or  writer. 
Carelessness  about  only  is  so  far  the  rule  that  (a) 
it  has  become  a  kind  of  unconscious  convention, 
and  (b)  to  take  pains  with  the  word  seems  to 
most  persons  (or  would  if  they  thought  anything 
about  it)  rather  artificial  and  stiff;    very  much 


FORMAL  CLEARNESS   (II):    ONLY       167 

as  common  proprieties  of  civil  speech  will  seem 
to  an  untrained  country  boy  like  affectations. 
The  exceptions,  I  think,  are  negligible;  only  is 
misplaced  (just  as  in  England,  we  are  told, 
"aren't"  is  much  used  for  am  not,  and  as  in  New 
England  "ain't"  is  used  for  am  not,  aren't,  and 
isn't)  because  people  are  not  sufficiently  civilized 
to  use  words  correctly. 

I  need  not  take  space  to  show  how  in  sentences 
like  some  that  I  have  given  only  may  by  easy 
rearrangement  be  rendered  emphatic  without 
ambiguity;  how  good  rhythm  may  be  produced 
without  sacrifice  of  correctness;  how  the  most 
ardent  stylist  may  make  bad  rhythm  and  am- 
biguity together.1     Artistry  costs  effort. 

1  It  will  perhaps  be  suggestive  to  print  two  of  the  passages  (both 
from  Ruskin)  with  certain  divisions  indicated  : 

...  I  |  said  that  the  sea  could  |  only  be  painted  by  |  more  or  less 
dexterous  |  con  |  ventionalisms  .  .  . 

...  we  can  on  |  ly  say  |  that  the  choice  |  is  right  |  when  we  feel  | 
that  the  means  |  are  effect  |  ive. 

This  is  not  prose  poetry ;  it  is  (for  prose)  bad  rhythm. 


XXI 

THE  SQUINTING  CONSTRUCTION 

We  have  seen  that  it  is  not  easy  to  distinguish 
sharply  between  formal  ambiguity  and  that 
which  is  more  than  formal.  In  further  treatment 
of  the  subject  of  .Clearness,  I  shall  not  make  the 
distinction  prominent.  If  I  give  the  words  that 
head  the  chapter  a  wide  application,  I  shall  not, 
I  trust,  go  beyond  a  fair  use  of  them. 

Professor  Lounsbury  says  that  "the  separation 
of  the  adverb  from  the  verb  seems  to  many  to 
deprive  expression  in  some  measure  of  strength." 
The  expression  "of  strength",  depending  really 
on  "deprive  ",  squints  at  "measure."  The  proof- 
reader may  have  served  Mr.  Masefield  an  ill 
turn  in  "The  voice  reveals  character  more  clearly 
than  the  face,  more  clearly  than  it  reveals  char- 
acter, it  reveals  spiritual  power."  A  semicolon 
after  "face"  would  prevent  even  a  momentary 
uncertainty  as  to  which  way  the  next  six  words 

168 


THE  SQUINTING  CONSTRUCTION      169 

look.  Which  way  does  "more  or  less"  look, 
in  "...  a  commonwealth  of  the  chief  actors 
and  actresses,  who  govern  themselves  more  or 
less  under  the  control  of  a  director  appointed 
by  the  government"  (Matthews)  ?  "In  Measure 
for  Measure,  in  contrast  with  the  flawless  execu- 
tion of  Romeo  and  Juliet,  Shakspeare  has  spent 
his  art  in  just  enough  modification  of  the  scheme 
of  the  older  play  to  make  it  exponent  of  this 
purpose  ..."  (Pater.)  Which  way  does  "in 
contrast"  look?  It  were  better  to  write  so  that 
one  need  not  concern  himself  about  discourse 
once  correctly  printed,  any  more  than  the  Cu- 
msean  Sibyl  heeded  the  fate  of  the  leaves  in  her 
cave. 

"True,  on  the  whole,  to  fact,  it  is  another 
side  of  kingship  which  he  has  made  prominent 
in  his  English  histories."  Here  again  Pater 
fails.  Like  a  participle  seeking  where  to  attach 
itself,  his  "True"  looks  this  way  and  that.  "I 
will  now  proceed ",  says  Newman,  "  to  describe 
the  dangers  I  speak  of  more  distinctly  ..." 
Mrs.  Humphry  Ward  is  the  schoolgirl  in  "Dora 
tried  to  explain  what  she  meant  to  herself,  and 
failed."  Mr.  G.  K.  Chesterton  has  the  squint : 
"For,  mean  and  gross  as  they  are,  in  all  serious- 


170  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

ness,  they  contain  what  is  entirely  absent  from 
all  Utopias  ...  of  our  time."  "We  have  rea- 
son to  believe  that,  in  the  meantime,  he  did  as 
much  writing  as  they  would  take  for  the  book- 
sellers" and  "...  studying  the  things  he  was 
not  sent  to  study  with  even  too  intent  applica- 
tion ..."  are  quoted  from  one  Woodrow  Wilson. 
The  next  is  intrinsically  more  interesting. 
"But  in  one  peculiar  case",  says  a  contributor 
to  the  Independent,  "the  hue  of  the  odor  was 
seen  by  the  person  who  experienced  it  on  his  own 
forehead."  To  experience  on  one's  own  forehead 
the  hue  of  an  odor  as  well  as  see  the  hue  —  one 
would  like  to  try  it !  And  this  is  sufficiently 
complicated:  "It  was  only  when  a  preacher 
spoke  before  kings  and  gentry  like  Latimer,  or 
before  the  citizens  of  free  cities  like  Savonarola 
.  .  .  that  social  or  political  preaching  could  be 
attempted  ..."  (Rauschenbusch.)  What  a 
word  our  "like"  must  be  for  a  foreigner  to  get 
acquainted  with  !  And  as  if  its  numerous  correct 
uses  were  not  enough,  we  are  told  that  the  use 
of  it  as  a  conjunction  ("He  acted  like  you  do")  is 
common  in  Great  Britain,  and  is  defended  by 
some  good  authorities  !  The  authority  who  could 
defend   that  as   good   English   might   qualify  as 


THE  SQUINTING  CONSTRUCTION      171 

advocatus  diaboli  (though  I  believe  the  function 
of  the  a.  d.  is  not  defense),  and  be  done  with  it. 
Mr.  Woodberry's  standing  is  so  high  that  some 
readers  may  think  this  is  right  because  he  wrote 
it :  "...  the  novel  entered  upon  its  career  of 
recreating  the  past  with  extraordinary  vigor 
.  .  ."  If  the  reader  smells  a  fault  in  my  own 
language  just  now  used,  I  beg  to  inform  him  that 
I  knew  what  I  was  doing.  Interpret  either  way. 
When  I  write  seriously,  I  will  try  to  write  clearly. 
Having  occasion  to  look  up  a  passage  I  had 
quoted  from  William  James's  "The  Will  to 
Believe",  I  took  time  to  re-read  a  few  pages  of 
the  book.  On  page  6  I  found,  "You  probably 
feel  that  when  religious  faith  expresses  itself 
thus,  in  the  language  of  the  gaming-table,  it  is 
put  to  its  last  trumps."  A  very  good  illustration 
of  the  "squint."  On  page  7,  "...  as  if  the 
incorruptibly  truthful  intellect  ought  positively 
to  prefer  bitterness  and  unacceptableness  to  the 
heart  in  its  cup."  In  the  immediate  context 
James  quotes  from  Huxley  a  passage  containing 
a  good  specimen  of  the  squint;  and  from  "that 
delicious  enfant  terrible  Clifford ",  the  following : 
"Belief  is  desecrated  when  given  to  unproved 
and  unquestioned  statements  for  the  solace  and 


172 


WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 


private  pleasure  of  the  believer."  From  page  9 
I  copied  these  two  fragments :  "...  a  previ- 
ous action  of  our  willing  nature  of  an  antagonistic 
kind."  "Our  belief  in  truth  itself,  for  instance, 
that  there  is  a  truth  .  .  ."  Four  pages,  half-a- 
dozen  squinting  constructions. 

Again  the  parallel  columns;    let  us  hear  from 
other  authors,  of  no  mean  rank. 


He  ...  is  liable,  in  our 
judgment,  to  very  grave 
reprehension  if  he  appeal  to 
the  body  of  the  people  against 
those  who  are  more  imme- 
diately its  representatives 
than  himself  in  any  case  of 
doubtful  expediency .... 
(Lowell.) 

.  .  .  their  conveying  him 
and  his  baggage  to  and  from 
the  station  by  the  same  cab, 
and  their  separation  of  him 
and  his  baggage  by  means  of 
the  local  transfer  agencies. 
.  .  .     (Harper's  Easy  Chair.) 

.  .  .  each  drop  freezing 
on  whatsoever  it  fell  .  .  . 
(Allen.) 

As  she  closed  the  blinds, 
for  the  first  time  in  her  life, 
the  Professor's  daughter  did 
.  .  .  stoop  to  take  a  look  at 


An  examination  of  the 
whole  sentence  makes  it  clear 
that  in  more  than  one  way  it 
might  easily  be  rewritten  so 
as  to  express  the  thought 
neatly  and  forcibly,  and  at 
the  same  time  without  any 
violation  of  formal  clearness. 


A  weighty  matter  like  the 
transportation  of  a  British 
tourist  and  his  "boxes" 
should  be  discussed  in  im- 
peccable English.  We  want 
to  know,  you  know,  what 
the  lit'ry  feller  means  ! 

What  is  "whatsoever  it 
fell"  supposed  to  mean  ! 


A  professor's  daughter 
"hadn't  oughter"  stoop  to 
do  such  a  thing  —  or  allow 
any    unseemly    squinting    in 


THE  SQUINTING  CONSTRUCTION      173 


the    window    of   a    student. 
(Mrs.  Phelps  Ward.) 


.  .  .  their  writing  had  the 
effect  of  reported  speech 
addressed  to  an  audience. 
(Miss  Scudder.) 

.  .  .  they  would  not  wield 
the  brutum  fulmen  of  a  name 
merely  signifying  phenomenal 
success  for  advertising  pur- 
poses.    (Alden.) 

For  myself,  having  drawn 
the  picture  of  the  man  as  I 
see  him,  though  knowing 
well  that  I  am  far  from  see- 
ing him  all,  and  still  farther 
from  seeing  inwardly  through 
him,  yet  I  know  that  I  can- 
not help  it  by  additional 
comments.     (Morse.) 

Henceforth  ...  I  will 
speak  of  events  which  hap- 
pened from  an  historical 
point  of  view.     (Crawford.) 

In  later  life  he  preached 
the  duty  of  walking  with 
admirable  perseverance  to  his 
friends.     (Stephen.) 


her  English.  "We  know 
what  belongs  to  a"  profes- 
sor's daughter ! 

Now  what  does  tins  mean  ! 
To  address  a  "reported 
speech"  to  an  audience  were 
perilous  plagiarism. 

Consider  how  many  times 
Mr.  Alden  must  have  knitted 
his  care-worn  brow  over  such 
English,  written  by  would-be 
contributors. 

It  is  necessary  to  read  at 
least  two-thirds  of  this  sen- 
tence of  forty-three  words 
before  one  can  be  sure  about 
the  syntax  of  the  fourteenth 
word,  "though."  An  old 
reader  may  be  pardoned  for 
doubting  whether  this  writer 
was  clear  in  his  own  tlunking. 

The  faidt  is  formal ;  but 
Mr.  Crawford  is  elever 
enough  to  attain,  in  elemen- 
tary matters,  perfect  form. 

I  can  imagine  Mr.  Craw- 
ford's comment  on  this  ;  for 
time  was,  I  believe,  when 
Crawford  was  critical. 


XXII 

THE  AUTOMATIC  SENTENCE 

The  Average  Writer,  one  is  tempted  to  say, 
assumes  that  with  a  fair  start  his  sentence  will 
go  alone.  Now  and  again  we  see  it  start  with 
a  negative  subject  or  its  equivalent,  and  trot  on 
merrily  with  ill-matched  predicates.1  (1)  The 
popular  novelist  writes  that  "Neither  Hatch 
nor  Egeria  questioned  him,  but  .  .  .  waited  si- 
lently." (2)  One  of  our  forty  Immortals  affirms 
that  ".  .  .  no  man  can  follow  their  trails  .  .  . 
and  cannot  make  out  an  object  twenty  yards 
ahead."  His  second  predicate,  going  as  it  pleases, 
says  the  opposite  of  what  he  means.  (3)  Pro- 
fessor Coe  gives  his  second  predicate  a  new  sub- 
ject, but  lets  it  go  wrong  :  "Of  course,  few  preach- 
ers have  the  hardihood  to  be  perfectly  true  to  the 
dogmatic  point  of  view.  They  are  too  close  to 
the  heart  of  Jesus  to  apply  in  actual  practice 

1  Compare  Chapter  XI. 
174 


THE  AUTOMATIC  SENTENCE  175 

such  a  legalistic  scheme  ..."  Few  preachers, 
then,  are  too  close.  The  easy  way  is  not  al- 
ways the  best  way,  whether  in  religion  or  in  lit- 
erature. 

(4)  "If  this  were  not  done,  if  things  went  on 
at  the  rate  they  had  been  going,  nobody  would 
be  read  with  pleasure  much  longer  than  a  few 
years,  and  in  course  of  time  could  hardly  be  under- 
stood without  an  interpreter."  Professor  Louns- 
bury  seems  to  be  giving  us  Swift's  views,  as  ex- 
pressed in  his  Letter  to  the  Earl  of  Oxford.  One 
might  question  whether  "nobody  .  .  .  could 
hardly  be  understood"  exhibits  Swift's  English 
or  Lounsbury's;  but  (5)  on  another  page  I  find 
a  sentence  which  certainly  is  the  English  of  the 
Yale  professor:  "They  attribute  to  the  body 
created  by  Richelieu  benefits  which  no  institution 
of  the  sort  ever  had  the  ability  to  confer  upon  a 
language  and  never  can  have."  (6)  Here  belongs 
a  sentence  of  Miss  Sarah  Orne  Jewett's:  "She 
would  rarely  speak  of  anything  more  than  a  min- 
ute or  two,  and  then  would  drift  into  an  entirely 
foreign  subject."  In  the  second  predicate  the 
reference  is  not,  I  take  it,  to  the  rare  occasion. 

At  least  half  of  the  six  sentences  thus  far  quoted 
are  plausible  enough  on  a  rapid  reading.     It  would 


176 


WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 


not  be  very  surprising  if  half  the  readers  of  these 
pages  should  pronounce  three  or  four  of  them 
good  English.  Such  a  judgment  is  entitled  to 
consideration. 

To  begin  with,  is  there  any  real  need  of  these 
questionable  locutions?  In  an  off-hand  way, 
without  having  the  contexts  before  me,  I  will  so 
far  rewrite  the  sentences  as  wholly  or  in  part  to 
avoid  what  I  object  to;  and  the  reader  may 
judge  for  himself. 


1.  Neither  Hatch  nor 
Egeria  questioned  him  — 
they  waited  silently. 

2.  No  man  can  follow 
their  trails,  and  it  is  impos- 
sible to  make  out. 


Approximately  correct ; 
and  therefore  better  than  the 
original. 

This  is  at  least  tolerable, 
and  therefore  better  than  the 
other. 


3.  Few  preachers  have 
the  hardihood.  Almost  all 
are  too  close. 

In  few  cases  do  preachers 
have  the  hardihood.  They 
are  too  close. 


I  am  willing  to  leave  my 
suggestion  without  any  com- 
ment. 

This  form  leaves  the 
second  sentence  unchanged, 
and  the  two  consistent. 


4.  Nobody  would  be  read 
more  than  a  few  years,  and 
in  course  of  time  one  could 
hardly  be  understood. 

5.  .  .  .  benefits  which  no 
institution  ever  had  the  abil- 
ity to  confer,  or  ever  can  have. 


Another  sentence  made 
consistent  with  itself.  I  have 
inserted  one  little  word  to 
remedy  the  principal  fault. 

The  double  negative  has 
been  avoided,  with  no  loss, 
I  think,  in  force  or  ease. 


THE  AUTOMATIC  SENTENCE 


177 


6.  She  would  rarely  speak 
of  anything  more  than  a 
minute  or  two ;  presently  she 
world  drift. 

She  would  rarely  speak  of 
anything  more  than  a  minute 
or  two ;  presently  drifting. 


Of  the  two  changes  sug- 
gested, the  first  is  in  the 
direction  of  conversational 
ease;  the  second  makes  a 
briefer  expression,  but  more 
formal.  Both,  I  think,  make 
for  clearness. 


One  reader,  responsive  to  the  merest  hint, 
sees  the  point  and  is  ready  to  pass  on ;  another, 
lacking  initiative  and  the  trick  of  generalization, 
may  prefer  to  have  his  thinking  done  for  him ; 
another  likes  detail,  reiteration,  wealth  of  illus- 
tration ;  another  is  curious  about  the  style  of  this 
author  and  that.  Before  leaving  the  topic  I 
have  broached,  it  may  be  well  to  give  further 
illustrations.     No  one  is  obliged  to  read  them. 


.  .  .  the  compact  .  .  . 
that  .  .  .  none  of  them 
should  .  .  .  treat  its  ordi- 
nary self  too  seriously,  or 
attempt  to  impose  it  on 
others ;  but  should  let  these 
others  .  .  .  have  their  fling. 
(Arnold.) 

...  no  citizen  can  admit 
this,  but  must  say  .  .  . 
(Morse.) 

...  in  many  cases  no 
child  is  really  able  to  main- 
tain   the    father's    establish- 


In  they  should  be  modest 
for  themselves,  but  should  in- 
sist upon  the  rights  of  others, 
two  shoulds  have  one  sub- 
ject, making  sense.  Arnold's 
"none"  stands  as  subject  of 
two  shoulds,  making  rank 
nonsense. 

Tliis  sentence  is  perfectly 
analogous  to  Arnold's,  above. 


The  sentence  could  be 
made  correct  and  clear  by 
inserting   each  before   "hav- 


178 


WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 


ment,  having  received  only 
a  fraction  of  the  father's 
capital.     (Eliot.) 

The  history  of  no  civil 
war  can  be  written  without 
bias,  scarcely  without  pas- 
sionate prejudice.     (Lowell.) 

The  dignity  of  his  thought 
owes  nothing  to  any  cere- 
monial garb  of  words,  but  to 
the  manly  movement  that 
comes  from  settled  purpose 
and  an  energy  of  reason  that 
knows  not  what  rhetoric 
means.     (Lowell.) 


ing  ",  thus  changing  the  irra- 
tional construction  to  a  safe 
nominative  absolute. 

Suppress  the  words  "with- 
out bias  ",  and  the  sentence 
shows  its  real  deformity, 
which  is  quite  needless. 

If  to  a  thought  so  fine 
Lincoln  had  given  a  "garb 
of  words"  so  ill-made,  he 
might  be  forgiven ;  but 
Lowell  was  "a  gentleman 
born",  "a  fellow  of  infinite" 
leisure  for  the  mastery  of 
expression. 


Lowell's  own  words  insist  upon  being  recalled : 

.  .  .  ef  your  soul 
Don't  sneak  thru  shun-pikes  so's  to  save  the  toll. 

It  is  better  to  follow  the  broad  highway  of  law- 
ful English  than  to  take  illicit  short  cuts  "so's 
to  save"  the  price,  in  patient  labor,  that  one  must 
pay  who  would  write  worthily. 

The  following  is  part  of  a  story  which  Miss 
Jewett  quotes  in  "Deephaven":  "'He  moved 
down  to  Denby,  and  while  he  was  getting  under 
way,  he  left  his  family  up  to  the  old  place,  and 
at  the  time  I  speak  of,  was  going  to  move  'em 
down   in   about   a   fortnight.'        The  words   are 


THE  AUTOMATIC  SENTENCE  179 

quoted  from  "Captain  Sands."  I  am  sure  that 
most  men  of  the  Captain  Sands  type  would  speak 
that  sentence  somewhat  as  follows:  "He  moved 
down  to  Denby,  and  while  he  was  getting  under 
way  he  left  his  family  up  to  the  old  place;  and 
at  the  time  I  speak  of,  he  was  going  to  move  'em 
down  in  about  a  fortnight."  In  the  revised  ver- 
sion the  emphatic  modifier,  "while  he  was  getting 
under  way  ",  modifies  only  the  first  of  the  follow- 
ing predicates.  Mrs.  Humphry  Ward:  "For  a 
few  sous  he  bought  a  bunch  of  yellow-eyed  narcis- 
sus and  stepped  gaily  home  with  them."  "For 
a  few  sous,"  then,  "he  .  .  .  stepped  gaily  home." 
Notwithstanding  the  distinction  of  Mrs.  Ward's 
work,  it  sometimes  lacks  finish.  On  the  same 
page  of  my  note-book  with  the  above  sentence  I 
find  "aggravating  peculiarities",  "strongest  re- 
sults", and  only  four  times  misplaced,  all  recorded 
against  her.  From  the  New- York  World:  "At 
the  age  of  twenty  he  went  out  to  Australia 
and  staid  there  forty-five  years."  Perennial 
youth!  Mr.  Ho  wells  might  have  given  us  one 
little  pronoun  in  "Near  at  hand  the  river  was 
busy  with  every  kind  of  craft,  and  in  the  dis- 
tance was  mysterious  with  silvery  vapors"; 
then   he    would    not   have   said   that   "near   at 


180  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

hand    the    river"    "was    mysterious"    "in    the 
distance." 

E.  F.  of  C,  while  riding  in  his  automobile  .  .  . 
yesterday,  had  a  paralytic  stroke  and  died  this  morn- 
ing at  4  o'clock.  (Newspaper.) 

Sometimes  these  communications  would  fill  a 
column,  and  were  almost  always  well  worth  a  careful 
perusal.  (McMaster.) 

By  the  help  of  a  small  bucket  and  our  hats,  we 
bailed  her  out,  got  on  board,  hoisted  the  boats,  eat  our 
supper,  changed  our  clothes,  .  .  .  and,  having  taken 
a  night-smoke,  turned  in.  (Dana.) 

During  that  night  the  storm  increased  in  violence, 
nor  abated  with  the  light  of  day. 

(Mary  Hallock  Foote.) 

.  .  .  when  I  was  called  and  found  it  an  ugly,  gusty 
morning  I  went  gratefully  back  to  bed,  and  spent  the 
rest  of  the  day  fishing.  (Benson.) 

At  the  foot  of  a  steep  precipice  was  the  whirlpool 
from  which  Parpon  had  saved  the  father  from  an  awful 
death,  and  had  received  this  lovely  region  as  his  reward. 

(Parker.) 

In  that  duel  Prince  Rudolf  received  a  severe  wound, 
and  recovering  therefrom,  was  adroitly  smuggled  off 
by  the  Ruritanian  ambassador,  who  had  found  him  a 
pretty  handful.  (Anthony  Hope  Hawkins.) 

By  adroit  manoeuvres  Polk  had  forced  the  fight 
upon  a  weak  and  reluctant  nation,  and  had  made  to 
his  own  people  false  statements  .  .  .  (Morse.) 


THE  AUTOMATIC  SENTENCE  181 

At  the  death  of  Edwin  Booth,  poor  Yorick  passed 
out  of  my  personal  cognizance,  and  now  lingers  an  in- 
congruous shadow  amid  the  memory  of  the  precious 
things  I  lost  then.  (Aldrich.) 

In  every  one  of  the  above  cases,  it  would  be 
easy  to  secure  formal  clearness  without  serious 
detriment  to  the  style.  If  one  of  these  writers 
intended  an  emphatic  modifier  to  apply  to  two 
or  more  predicates,  he  would  think  we  ought  to 
take  it  accordingly;  why  should  not  a  different 
intention  be  indicated  by  a  different  form  of 
expression  ? 


XXIII 

THE  CRAZY  SENTENCE 

Illogical  locutions  may  be  idiomatic  —  they 
may  be  idiotic;  they  are  often  so  inconsistent 
with  the  normal  working  of  a  sound  mind  as  to 
justify  the  strong  language  which  heads  this 
chapter. 

The  following  sentence  is  taken  from  a  some- 
what ambitious  work  on  English  Grammar : 

The  name  of  each  specific  inflection,  as  person,  case, 
mood,  etc.,  has  had  a  somewhat  indeterminate  value  in 
grammatical  usage,  and  has  been  variously  defined  as 
a  form,  property,  distinction,  condition,  etc. 

It  would  seem  that  person,  and  the  rest,  are 
properties  of  certain  parts  of  speech,  and  that 
different  persons,  cases,  etc.,  are  indicated  some- 
times by  certain  variations  of  form  called  inflec- 
tions. I  do  not  see  what  is  gained  by  identify- 
ing a  property  with  that  which  indicates  or  dis- 
tinguishes the  property.     A  red  coat,  to  be  sure, 

182 


THE  CRAZY  SENTENCE  183 

used  to  indicate  that  the  wearer  was  a  British 
soldier,  and  some  rhetorical  advantage  might 
be  gained  by  calling  "Tommy  Atkins"  a  red- 
coat ;  but  in  the  technical  language  of  the  sciences, 
which  are  difficult  enough  at  the  best,  it  would 
be  well  to  call  things  by  their  right  names.  While 
I  am  unable  to  decide  whether  at  the  outset  the 
intention  is  to  have  the  italicized  words  refer 
to  "name",  or  to  "inflection",  it  is  clear  that 
what  is  called  "person",  for  instance,  is  here 
identified  with  what  is  called  an  "inflection." 
But  now  comes  the  main  point:  If  the  "name" 
has  been  "defined  as  a,  form",  then,  according  to 
the  definition,  the  name  is  a  form  —  i.e.,  the 
name  possessive,  applied  to  a  certain  form  of  the 
personal  pronoun,  is  that  form!  So  then  the 
name  of  a  boy  is  the  boy ;  and  now  that  the  cost 
of  living  is  so  high,  it  would  be  a  great  saving  to 
"keep"  the  name,  and  let  the  boy  go.  Seriously, 
the  thing  itself  has  been  defined  "as"  form  (or 
whatever),  and  the  "name"  has  been  defined  by 
one  of  the  terms  mentioned. 

It  is  a  common  mistake  so  to  frame  a  sentence 
as  to  identify  one  thing  with  another  which 
cannot  possibly  be  the  same.  Mr.  John  Graham 
Brooks  says  that  "Not  a  few  of  these  latter-day 


184  WORKMANSHIP  IN   WORDS 

writers  are  so  slovenly  and  inaccurate  that  they 
serve  admirably  as  books  of  humor."  Slovenli- 
ness and  inaccuracy  are  not  in  themselves  hu- 
morous —  the  humor  of  this  passage  is  in  the 
unconscious  way  in  which  he  makes  his  sentence 
illustrate  his  proposition.  In  "He  had  caught 
the  trick  of  telling  a  story  which  apparently  was 
due  to  supernatural  causes  .  .  .  ",  Mr.  Cooper 
identifies  a  "story"  with  some  event  or  events 
narrated  in  it.  John  Henry  Newman  troubles 
me  as  King  Charles  troubled  Mr.  Dick.  I  can't 
keep  him  out.  "I  suppose  the  primd-facie  view 
which  the  public  at  large  would  take  of  a  Uni- 
versity ...  is  nothing  more  or  less  than  a  place 
for  acquiring  a  great  deal  of  knowledge  on  a 
great  many  subjects."  So  a  "view"  is  "a  place 
for  acquiring  .  .  .  knowledge"  !  Mr.  Chester- 
ton says  that  "...  there  is  at  Oxford  so  hot 
and  keen  a  struggle,  consisting  of  coal-heavers, 
London  clerks,  gypsies,  navvies  .  .  .  that  .  .  . 
aristocratic  exclusiveness  gives  way."  But  it 
will  be  better  to  resort  to  the  parallel  columns. 


Human  is  that  which  be-  I  see  no  reason  why  the 

longs  to  man  as  man;    hu-  difference  between  adjective 

mane    means     "compassion-  and    substantive    should    be 

ate."     (A.  S.  Hill.)  disregarded. 


THE  CRAZY  SENTENCE 


185 


"The  Chicago  Symphony 
Orchestra"  is  a  change  of 
name  necessitated  by  cir- 
cumstances, but  it  is  per- 
missible to  speak  of  it  as  the 
Thomas  Orchestra ;  or,  as 
we  usually  say,  "the  orches- 
tra."    (B.  L.  Taylor.) 

This  moral  theory,  while 
it  does  undoubtedly  explain 
a  few  isolated  instances  of 
material  want,  and  is  a  con- 
tributory factor  in  many 
more  ...     (J.  H.  Holmes.) 


Mr.  Taylor's  own  com- 
ments on  this  would  be  in- 
teresting. The  expression  is 
quoted  as  a  name,  is  affirmed 
to  be  "a  change  of  name", 
and  is  referred  to  by  the 
pronoun  "it"  as  an  organi- 
zation. 

The  gentleman  can  hardly 
mean  what  he  says.  Moral 
delinquency,  rather  than 
this  "moral  theory",  is  no 
doubt  "  a  contributory  fac- 
tor" in  producing  poverty. 


.  .  .  Phoebus  was  nothing 
but  a  bombastic  way  of  say- 
ing the  sun  .  .  .  (Santa- 
yana.) 

As  a  mere  proletary,  his 
ignorance  is  a  temptation 
to  the  stronger  race  .  .  . 
(Lowell.) 

He  came  seldom  to  Lon- 
don, and  then  only  as  a  task. 
.  .  .     (Stevenson.) 

In  the  more  barbarous 
parts  of  history,  such  as 
the  East  of  Europe  .  .  . 
(Woodberry.) 

Darwin  himself  was  care- 
ful to  point  out  that  other 
factors,    such    as    the    La- 


Phcebus  was  a  god  in  the 
Greek  mythology.  "Phoe- 
bus" or  Phoebus  was  a  name. 


This  should  identify  "pro- 
letary" with  "ignorance." 
For  discussion  of  such  a  sen- 
tence, see  Chapter  XIX. 

And  this  form  ought  in 
some  sense  to  identify  "task" 
with  the  subject,  "He." 

The  East  of  Europe  is 
not  even  a  part  of  geography. 
This  is  not  civilized  English. 


The  Lamarckian  theory, 
propounded  after  the  middle 
of    the    eighteenth    century, 


186 


WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 


marckian  theory  of  inherit- 
ance of  acquired  characteris- 
tics, no  doubt  had  a  vital 
part  in  the  process. 

.  .  .  Caleb  stood  on  the 
ladder  completely  equipped, 
except  for  his  copper  helmet, 
the  last  thing  done  to  a 
diver  before  he  sinks  under 
water.     (Hopkinson  Smith.) 

.  .  .  it  ["this  glue  of  com- 
promise"] will  not  stand  hot 
water,  —  and  as  the  ques- 
tion of  slavery  is  sure  to 
plunge  all  who  approach  it, 
even  with  the  best  inten- 
tions, into  that  fatal  element 
.  .  .     (Lowell.) 

But  although  in  discuss- 
ing the  word  'chance',  I 
may  at  moments  have 
seemed  to  be  arguing  for 
its  real  existence,  I  have  not 
meant  to  do  so  yet.     (James.) 


was  too  late  to  have  a  part, 
of  any  kind,  in  the  seonian 
process  of  the  Descent  of 
Man. 

If  a  copper  helmet  is  the 
last  thing  done  to  a  diver, 
then  good-by  to  distinctions 
(and  to  distinction)  in  the 
use  of  language. 


That  is  the  very  note  of 
the  untrained  boy.  He 
wants  to  say  "that  fatal  ele- 
ment ",  so  he  says  it,  with- 
out stopping  to  inquire 
whether  or  not  "hot  water" 
can  properly  be  spoken  of  as 
an  element. 

After  considering  the  con- 
text, I  seek  an  antecedent 
for  "its"  within  the  sen- 
tence. If  for  "its  real  exist- 
ence" we  put  the  real  exist- 
ence of  the  word  chance,  the 
nonsense  is  manifest. 


My  belated  efforts  to  learn  something  of 
psychology  from  the  books  have  been  uniformly 
ineffectual.  One  of  my  latest  ventures  in  this 
field  confronted  me  with  the  statement  that 
"science  is  a  systematic  study  of  facts."  The 
dictionary  seemed  to  warrant  me  in  questioning 


THE  CRAZY  SENTENCE  187 

this  statement.  A  few  pages  further  on,  I  read 
that  "science  studies  these  phenomena."  So 
a  study  of  facts  studies  facts.  On  another  page 
the  author  speaks  of  breaking  up  a  verb-form 
"into  stem  .  .  .  mood,  tense,  personal  ending", 
etc. ;  but  I  had  never  supposed  it  was  possible  to 
break  up  a  verb-form  into  "mood"  (I  use  this 
spelling  under  protest)  or  tense.  You  break 
a  thing  up  into  its  components,  not  into  the 
abstract  properties  it  may  have.  Reading  on, 
I  found  that  "blue"  is  called  an  "experience." 
I  do  not  see  how  a  clear  understanding  of  facts 
should  be  promoted  by  giving  the  same  name  to 
an  experience  of  the  subject  and  a  quality  by 
common  consent  spoken  of  as  belonging  to  the 
object.  Later,  I  was  told  that  "the  interval  is 
...  an  experience."  I  suppose  this  is  figura- 
tive language ;  in  pure  science,  I  could  wish  that 
a  spade  might  be  called  a  spade. 

In  another  place  the  learned  writer  says,  "I 
am  conscious  .  .  .  that  Bacon  did  not  really 
write  the  Tempest."  This  expands  —  no,  up- 
sets —  my  notion  of  consciousness.  For  aught 
we  really  know,  Bacon  may  have  written  that 
immortal  comedy.  It  follows  that  one  may 
be    conscious    of    something    that    is    not    "so." 


188  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

"What,  now,  is  this  intimate  consciousness  of 
self  which  underlies  and  includes,  though  it  does 
not  consist  in,  the  moment-by-moment  ideas  and 
experiences?  What,  in  other  words,  do  I  mean 
by  the  'I*,  which  is  conscious  and  has  experi- 
ences?" The  second  question,  as  introduced, 
should  differ  only  in  form,  not  in  substance,  from 
the  first.  If  the  two  are  substantially  the  same, 
it  seems  to  follow  that  the  self  and  a  state  or  ac- 
tivity of  the  self  are  one  and  the  same.  What 
is  the  vibratory  condition  of  the  G-string  of  a 
violin  ?  In  other  words,  what  do  I  mean  by  the 
G-string  of  a  violin?  "Consciousness",  says  the 
dictionary,  "is  used  in  many  wide  and  loose 
senses."     I  think  it  be  so. 


XXIV 

MORE  INSANITY 

I  fear  I  am  not  in  my  perfect  mind. 

Lear  suspected  his  condition  —  crazy  writers 
suppose  themselves  sane.  This  chapter  is  ex- 
pected to  have  (if  anybody  reads  it)  a  cumula- 
tive effect.  If  any  reader  likes  the  chaotic  style, 
the  aid  and  comfort  which  he  may  have  found  in 
chapter  XXIII  will  be  enhanced  by  the  eminent 
and  numerous  examples  of  confusion  displayed 
in  chapter  XXIV.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the 
reader  "views  with  alarm"  the  prevalence  of 
printed  unreason  as  indicated  hitherto,  the  formi- 
dable array  of  irrationality  yet  to  be  exhibited 
should  harrow  up  his  soul. 

.  .  .  speedy  second  thought  convinces  the  Ameri- 
can that  this  is  not  a  thing  which  he  has  ever  desired 
under  the  existing  system,  and  which  it  is  not  at  all 
likely  that  he  would  desire  under  one  to  come. 

(Gilman.) 
189 


190 


WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 


I  do  not  think  it  is  a  good  book,  and  certainly  not 
worth  publishing  on  its  merits.  (Benson.) 

—  without  the  air  of  having  picked  the  single  instance, 
but  of  having  chosen  from  many  —         (Churchill.) 

Each  village  was  defended  by  a  palisaded  fort  .  .  . 
and  was  occasionally  itself  surrounded  by  a  high  wooden 
stockade.  (Roosevelt.) 

Every  traveler  who  passes  through  the  South  sees 
the  conditions  existing,  and  frequently  returns  to 
write  books  about  them.     (Booker  T.  Washington.) 

The  Colonel  no  doubt  means  that  occasionally 
a  village  was  defended  by  a  stockade  in  addition 
to  the  fort  —  not  that  each  village  kept  build- 
ing stockades  and  tearing  them  down.  Mr. 
Washington's  language  indicates  a  greater  out- 
put of  books  on  "the  conditions  existing"  than 
he  meant  that  it  should.  And  one  wonders 
whither  the  traveler  returns. 

Something  was  missing  in  each  of  these,  and 
I  have  supplied  it  in  brackets : 

1.  He  is  not  anxious  to  keep  any  more  of  the 
Spanish  territory  than  he  can[not]  help. 

{Independent.) 

2.  .  .  .  little  can  they  tell  to  those  who  have  not 
themselves  seen  similar  wildness,  and  like  a  language 
have  [not]  learned  it.  (Muir.) 


MORE  INSANITY  191 

3.  [Instead  of]  For  the  future  it  had  become  fashion- 
able to  say  in  future.  (Lounsbury.) 

4.  The  Assyrian  sculptures  contain  more  represen- 
tations of  caparisoned  horses  than  even  [of]  men. 

(Newspaper.) 

5.  .  .  .  the  use  that  the  Flying  Squadron  might 
have  been  [of].  (Mahan.) 

6.  The  other  conception  of  theology  regards  God 
not  so  much  as  an  arbitrary  authority  outside  the 
world  as  [as]  the  spirit  of  love  and  sacrifice  within  it. 

(College  president.) 

Of  course,  inserting  what  is  necessary  to  make 
sense  is  one  thing,  and  making  the  sentence  a 
good  one  is  quite  another.  Numbers  "1.",  "5.", 
and  "6."  need  to  be  rewritten.  Number  "2." 
would  have  been  better  without  the  second 
"have."  Lest  any  reader  question  the  sense  of 
"6."  as  amended,  I  suggest  supplying  before  the 
bracketed  as  the  omitted  words  it  regards  him. 
This  done,  the  third  as  is  perfectly  justified. 

I  am  sorry  I  cannot  be  sure  which  one  of  our 
best  weeklies  had  a  contributed  article  ending  with 
the  words,  ".  .  .  it  will  undoubtedly  supply  the 
need  for  just  such  a  discussion  as  Christian  So- 
cialists and  others  have  long  felt."  If  contrib- 
utors write  such  stuff,  and  editors  cause  it  to 
be  printed,  readers  ought  to  protest.     We  may 


192 


WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 


be  sure  that  when  the  public  do  their  part  in  the 
way  of  criticism,  editors  and  publishers  will 
take  notice.  Here  as  elsewhere,  the  demand  for 
a  good  thing  will  be  met  by  an  effort  to  supply  it. 
Sometimes,  instead  of  omitting  words  necessary 
to  the  sense,  writers  put  in  more  than  the  sense 
will  bear : 


To  say  this  is  not  to  deny 
that  one  or  another  of  these 
artificial  tongues  may  not 
serve  certain  of  the  humbler 
purposes  of  commerce,  and 
that  some  men  may  use  it  in 
bargaining,  even  if  they  do 
not  feel  it  fit  for  love-making. 
(Matthews.) 

.  .  .  that  it  had  cost  him 
on  an  average  of  $800  per 
game  .  .  .      (Newspaper.) 

.  .  .  minds  as  different  as 
those  of  Charles  Darwin  and 
of  T.  H.  Green.  <T>rum- 
mond.) 

We  are  never  more  likely 
than  to-day  to  be  in  a  better 
position  to  inflict  condign 
punishment  upon  France 
with  slighter  loss  to 
selves. 


our- 


When  a  thing  of  the  intel- 
lect is  settled  it  is  not  dead  : 


The  redundant  negative 
seems  to  be  an  echo  of  a 
French  idiom.  If  it  were 
right  in  the  first  subordinate 
clause,  it  would  be  right  in 
the  second,  where  it  does  not 
appear.  Mr.  Howells,  too, 
has  the  "idiom."  I  note 
the  feminine  "feel  it  fit." 

This  error  is  much  too 
common.  Either  "on"  or 
"of"  should  be  omitted. 

How  many  minds  had 
Charles  Darwin,  and  how 
many  had  T.  H.  Green  ? 


I  am  very  sorry  that  I 
cannot  give  due  credit  for 
this  achievement.  How  fine 
a  scorn  it  shows  for  the 
trammels  of  intelligible 
speech ! 

I  suppose  "the  critter 
means"    (as    Hosea    Biglow 


MORE  INSANITY 


193 


rather  it  is  immortal.  The 
multiplication  table  is  im- 
mortal, and  so  is  the  fame  of 
Shakspere.  But  the  fame 
of  Zola  is  not  dead  or  not 
immortal ;  it  is  at  its  crisis ; 
it  is  in  the  balance  ;  and  may 
be  found  wanting.  (Ches- 
terton.) 


would  say)  that  the  fame  of 
Zola  is  an  unsettled  "thing 
of  the  intellect";  that  it  is 
not  dead,  nor  (yet  proved  to 
be)  immortal.  But  perhaps, 
like  Mr.  F.'s  aunt,  Chester- 
ton hates  a  fool.  Perhaps 
he  would  punish  us  for  our 
natural  gifts. 


The  following  expressions  are  the  work  (?) 
of  writers  who  should  know  better : 

There  is  a  rich  class  and  a  poor  class,  whose  manner 
of  life  is  wedged  farther  and  farther  apart  .  .  . 

The  subject  shifts  from  any  one  may  to  it  may. 

No  man  .  .  .  can  be  blind  for  years  to  the  idolatry 
that  a  love-crazed  woman  is  perpetually  trying  to 
conceal  for  him. 

Lord  Tennyson  was  even  harder  to  induce  to  go 
into  an  anthology  than  Mr.  Browning,  much  less  to 
take  an  interest  in  the  making  of  one. 

The  State  would  be  a  democratic  State,  elected  by 
universal  suffrage. 

.  .  .  seems  to  have  been  master  of  the  whole  range 
of  economic  literature,  and  wielded  it  with  a  logical 
skill  not  less  masterly. 

The  distinguished  author  of  a  text-book  on 
Rhetoric  says,  "A  figure  of  speech  is  an  expres- 
sion in  which  one  thing  is  said  in  the  form  of 
another   related   to   it."     After   mentioning  that 


194  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

the  distinction  between  figurative  and  literal 
expression  is  "precisely  stated  in  the  definition", 
he  goes  on,  "If  .  .  .  we  .  .  .  say,  'He  fought 
like  a  lion ',  the  expression  is  figurative ;  for  we 
express  the  exact  fact  in  a  form  'related  to  it." 
According  to  the  definition,  one  thing  is  said  in 
the  form  of  another  thing  related  to  it  —  thing  is 
related  to  thing;  while  according  to  the  illustra- 
tion, "form"  is  related  to  "exact  fact"  — form 
is  related  to  thing.  It  is  true,  and  intelligible, 
that  a  figure  of  speech  is  the  employment  of  words 
in  a  non-literal  or  unusual  way,  with  a  view  to 
rhetorical  effect.  The  illustrative  sentence,  "He 
fought  like  a  lion  ",  has  the  disadvantage  that  it 
may  be  quite  literally  true.  Putting  aside  the 
baldest  technicality  —  "a  simile  is  an  express 
comparison"  —  the  statement  is  figurative,  if  at 
all,  only  so  far  as  it  stirs  the  imagination  with  the 
thought  of  that  fierce  and  formidable  beast. 
"The  lion  of  the  tribe  of  Juda"  is  a  pure  figure 
and  a  perfect  illustration. 

In  the  same  volume  in  which  Stevenson  tells 
of  the  infinite  pains  he  took  to  learn  to  write, 
I  find  this  sentence  : 

Perhaps  Robert's  originally  tender  heart  was  what 
made   the  difference;    or,   perhaps,   his   solitary  and 


MORE   INSANITY  195 

pleasant  labor  among  fruits  and  flowers  had  taught 
him  a  more  sunshiny  creed  than  those  whose  work  is 
among  the  tares  of  fallen  humanity.  .  .  . 

If  "him"  and  "those"  were  datives  in  form,  or 
were  governed  each  by  a  preposition  to,  we  should 
have  the  plain  sense  that  Robert's  labor  had 
perhaps  taught  him  a  more  sunshiny  creed  than 
it  had  taught  the  other  fellows ;  but  this  is  not  at 
all  what  R.  L.  S.  means.  A  reckless  journalist 
might  write  thus ;  the  wonder  is  that  a  real  work- 
man in  words  should  be  so  heedless. 

I  group  here  a  few  extracts  which  for  the  most 
part  need  not  be  remarked  upon  : 

...  it  makes  a  distinction  between  the  value  of 
family  life  for  one  set  of  people  as  over  against  another. 

(Miss  Addams.) 

The  Honourable  Dave  was  unmarried;  and,  he 
told  Honora,  not  likely  to  become  so.       (Churchill.) 

A  renewal  of  hostilities  is  in  no  quarter  considered 
probable  or  hardly  possible.  (Outlook.) 

To  conduct  such  a  journal  as  to  make  it  of  real 
value  would  be  expensive.  .  .  .  (Independent.) 

In  conclusion,  to  summarize  most  briefly  what  has 
been  said,  the  prime  consideration  in  the  whole  field 
of  literary  appreciation  is  to  avoid  making  literary 
study  a  study  of  something  else.  (Woodberry.) 


196 


WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 


The  issue  between  the  dogmatic  and  the  non- 
dogmatic  views  of  religion  is  nowhere  else  as  decisive 
as  it  is  with  respect  to  the  place  of  Christ  in  the  Chris- 
tian life.  (Coe.) 

Would  Mr.  Woodberry  advise  a  young  writer 
to  violate  formal  clearness  as  he  violates  it? 
While  I  know  what  a  scholar  should  mean  by 
the  language  Professor  Coe  has  used,  I  don't 
know  whether  he  is  thinking  of  dogmatic  "views" 
and  non-dogmatic  "views",  or  of  the  dogmatic 
and  the  non-dogmatic  view.  Perhaps  I  ought 
to  apologize  for  the  doubt.  No  apology  is  due 
for  mentioning  the  harsh  sibilancy  of  the  latter 
part  of  the  sentence. 

The  errors  that  I  put  next  are  sufficiently 
commonplace ;    but  they  are  significant : 


.  there  would  be 
statues  of  each  of  these  per- 
sons at  the  end  of  each 
of  these  streets.  [Shakspere 
Street,  Cromwell  Street,  and 
Wordsworth  Street.]  (Ches- 
terton.) 

His  gloom  over  the  slavery 
question  was  because  .  .  . 
(Brooks.) 


At  least  two  statues  of 
each  worthy  at  the  end  of 
each  street.  Eighteen  statues 
as  a  minimum.  Municipal 
encouragement  of  art.  What 
Chesterton  means  —  that  is 
another  matter. 

Does  this  "was"  mean 
existed?  If  not,  the  con- 
junction is  misused. 


His    feet    are    like    great  Then  "animals  that  climb 

pads   and  his  track  has  little      and  dig"  have  a  "sharp  artic- 


MORE   INSANITY 


197 


of  the  sharp,  articulated  ex- 
pression of  Reynard's,  or  of 
animals  that  climb  and  dig. 
(Burroughs.) 

It  is  from  this  impatience 
of  the  tragic  and  the  bom- 
bastic that  it  is  now  .  .  . 
opposing  itself  to  the  un- 
christian practice  of  duelling 
.  .  .  and  certainly  it  seems 
likely  to  effect  what  religion 
has  aimed  at  abolishing  in 
vain.     (Newman.) 

There  is  no  reason  why 
the  data  .  .  .  should  be  suffi- 
cient .  .  .  and  to  expect  that 
they  will  is  like  expecting  that 
one  witness  in  a  trial  is  to 
prove  the  whole  case,  and 
that  his  testimony  actually 
contradicts  it,  unless  it  does. 
(Newman.) 

The  positive  forms  of 
each  [the  adverb  rathe  and  the 
adjective  rath{e)  ]  practically 
died  out  long  ago.  (Louns- 
bury.) 

.  .  .  seconded  by  an  ener- 
getic friend,  we  [the  "  friend  " 
and  the  writer]  thought  to 
bring  Slide  to  terms.  (Bur- 
roughs.) 


ulated  expression."  If  Mr. 
B.  doesn't  mean  to  have  us 
infer  that,  he  should  give  his 
thought  better  "expression." 

Religion  has  aimed  at 
abolishing  dueling  (but  not  at 
abolishing  it  "in  vain").  So 
"it  seems  likely  to  effect" 
dueling.  Such  utter  non- 
sense from  the  pen  of  the 
youngest  reporter  would 
justify  a  severe  "calling- 
down"  from  his  chief. 

"I  expect  that  is  so"  and 
"I  expect  he  did"  are  not 
only  common  but  vulgar. 
Newman's  "is  to  prove"  is 
bad  enough,  but  may  be 
thought  of  as  equivalent  to  a 
future;  his  "contradicts"  is 
inexcusable.  His  "unless  it 
does"  is  hardly  clear. 

Probably  the  professor 
does  not  mean  that  the  ad- 
verb had  more  than  one  posi- 
tive form.  Compare  Chester- 
ton's language,  above. 

This  is  freedom  of  speech, 
with  a  vengeance.  But  there 
is  no  bondage  in  willing  at- 
tention to  rudimentary  good 
form. 


Three  more,  and  this  chapter  ends  : 

All  clambakes  at  the  point  were  invariably  Indian 
fashion,  rocks  heated  by  a  great  cordwood  fire  in  the 


198  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

open  air  and  then  buried  deep  under  rockweed,  to  be 
later  eaten,  juicy,  tender  and  irresistible.  For  this 
men  and  women  came  from  all  over  America. 

(Newspaper.) 

The  president's  tariff  board  is  composed  of  able 
and  well-informed  men  in  a  general  way.  I  know  that 
my  friend  Hon.  William  Howard  is. 

At  least,  it  [destructive  criticism]  provokes  the  silent 
question,  "What  are  you  going  to  do  about  it?"  and, 
finding  no  answer,  turns  from  the  speaker  [sic]  as  from 
one  in  whom  is  no  help.  (Churchman.) 


XXV 

IT 


"< 


:She"  served  as  title  for  a  book  that  was  widely 
read ;  surely  "It"  is  big  enough  to  head  a  chapter. 
I  have  used  in  another  connection  some  material 
bearing  on  the  misuse  of  this  troublesome  midget, 
and  some  such  material  has  gone  into  the  waste- 
basket  ;  but  the  tiny  pronoun  is  so  great  a  sinner 
against  Clearness  as  to  deserve  to  be  faithfully 
punished  here. 

The  Englishman  who  has  money  expects  to  find 
his  inferiors  cringing  to  him ;  and  in  his  own  country 
his  expectation  is  rarely  disappointed.  When  he 
happens  to  come  over  here,  he  fails  to  find  it,  and  he 
misses  it.  (Matthews.) 

We  have  seen  in  Chapter  XII  that  a  form  like 
"cringing"  may  be  either  a  participle  or  a  gerund. 
In  the  sentence,  On  account  of  his  inferiors  cring- 
ing to  him  so  constantly,  he  comes  to  expect  it, 
the  form  cringing  being  a  gerund,  the  combina- 

199 


200  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

tion  inferiors  cringing  is  a  substantive,  and  there- 
fore is  properly  regarded  as  antecedent  of  the 
pronoun  it.  But  in  the  sentence  I  have  quoted 
from  Professor  Matthews,  "cringing"  is  a  parti- 
ciple, and  his  pronoun  "it"  has  no  proper  ante- 
cedent. 

.  .  .  since  q  is  employed  only  with  u  (when  it  is 
pronounced  hw)  .  .  .  (Matthews.) 

Here  if  the  pronoun  "it"  refers  to  "q",  the 
statement  in  curves  is  not  true;  for  q  certainly 
is  not  "pronounced  Jew ",  nor  pronounced  with 
the  sound  of  kw.  If  the  it  does  not  refer  to  "g  ", 
it  does  not  refer  grammatically  to  anything. 

To  make  the  matter  perfectly  clear,  it  may  be  worth 
while  to  consider  in  detail  one  of  the  many  disputed 
usages  about  which  very  positive  pronouncements  are 
constantly  made  by  men  who  have  not  taken  the  pains 
to  acquire  the  slightest  familiarity  with  its  history. 
(Lounsbury.) 

It  is  a  pity  that  he  did  not  make  his  sentence 
"perfectly  clear."  A  comma  after  "usages" 
would  have  suggested  that  "which"  relates  to 
"one",  and  so  would  have  prepared  the  reader 
for  "its";  but,  taking  the  sentence  as  it  stands 
printed  in  the  book,   until   "its"   is  reached  in 


IT  201 

the  reading  there  is  good  reason  to  believe  that 
the  relative  relates  to  "usages."  Then  it  appears 
that  if  the  sentence  is  grammatical,  "one"  is 
the  antecedent.  I  am  not  at  all  sure  that  the 
sentence  is  grammatical. 

In  general,  however,  it  may  be  said  that  a  pronoun 
may  fill  any  noun  relation  when  it  can  be  done  with- 
out ambiguity,  or  violation  of  any  other  principle  of 
good  rhetorical  style.  (Mary  H.  Leonard.) 

So  far  as  use  of  pronouns  is  in  question,  the 
writer  of  this  sentence  would  probably  think  it 
good  enough  as  it  stands;  and  any  one  else  has 
a  perfect  right  to  think  so.  But  I  suppose  the 
mere  question  of  a  formal  antecedent  for  the 
second  "it"  is  not  all  that  should  be  considered. 
With  the  temporal  clause  preceding  the  subject 
and  modifying  the  whole  proposition,  the  "it" 
might  loosely  refer  to  the  whole  thought  of  a 
pronoun  filling  a  noun  relation.  That  clause 
being  incorporated  with  the  predicate,  the  loose 
reference  would  naturally  be  to  filling  a  noun 
relation;  but  so  referring,  the  pronoun  would 
not  fully  express  the  meaning  intended.  If  do  so 
were  substituted  for  "be  done",  the  difficulty 
would  disappear.  The  worst  fault  of  the  sen- 
tence —  or  at  least  the  most  obvious  one  —  is 


202  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

in  that  the  use  of  "other  principle"  makes  "am- 
biguity" to  be  a  "principle  of  good  rhetorical 
style."  I  take  it  that  without  ambiguity,  or  any 
other  violation  of  rhetorical  principles  would  express 
the  thought. 

This  whole  question  of  clearness  has  been  so  admi- 
rably discussed  by  Anthony  Trollope  in  his  Auto- 
biography that  I  cannot  do  a  greater  service  to 
young  writers  than  by  quoting  it  in  its  entirety. 

(Cooper.) 

Then,  instead  of  quoting  Trollope's  Auto- 
biography entire,  he  quotes  thirty-four  lines. 
If  "Autobiography"  is  not  the  antecedent  of 
"it",  perhaps  "question"  is!  I  suppose  Mr. 
Cooper  thinks  of  the  detail  of  sentence-making 
somewhat  as  a  great  architect  might  think  of 
a  journeyman-carpenter's  work.  But  there  is  a 
difference.  An  architect,  writing  for  the  instruc- 
tion of  young  architects,  does  not  have  to  fit 
floor-boards  or  put  up  door-casings.  An  author, 
writing  for  the  instruction  of  young  writers,  is 
obliged  to  do  —  before  their  eyes,  so  to  speak  — 
a  great  deal  of  the  work  of  a  "journeyman"; 
and  on  their  way  of  doing  just  such  work  will 
depend,  very  largely,  the  success  as  well  as  the 
merit  of  their  literary  product.     Longum  iter  est 


IT  203 

per  praecepta,  breve  et  efficax  per  exempla.1  The 
tyro  may  or  may  not  act  upon  Mr.  Cooper's 
good  advice;  he  will  surely  be  influenced  by  the 
gentleman's  bad  example. 

Clearness  is  so  inseparable  an  element  of  all  good 
writing  that  many  a  critic  and  rhetorician  has  regarded 
it  as  a  term  almost  synonymous  with  that  illusive 
quality  called  style.  (Cooper.) 

"Clearness"  evidently  is  regarded  at  the  out- 
set as  a  quality.  Then  the  pronoun  "it",  which 
refers  to  "Clearness"  and  should  mean  the  same 
that  "Clearness"  means,  is  made  to  mean  a 
"term";  but  this  "term",  again,  Mr.  Cooper 
tells  us  has  been  regarded  as  "synonymous" 
not  with  another  term,  but  with  a  "quality. 


>> 


Johnson's  claim  to  be  the  best  of  our  talkers  can- 
not, on  our  present  materials,  be  contested.  For  the 
most  part,  we  have  only  talk  about  other  talkers. 
Johnson's  is  matter  of  record.  Carlyle  no  doubt  was 
a  great  talker  —  no  man  talked  against  talk  or  broke 
silence  to  praise  it  more  eloquently  than  he,  but  un- 
fortunately none  of  it  is  in  evidence.  (Birrell.) 

Mr.  Birrell  seems  to  mean  that  for  the  most 
part  we  have  only  talk  about  other  talkers,  with 

1  Misquoted  (into  bad  Latin)  by  Lowell  in  the  Biglow  Papers, 
First  Series,  No.  III. 


204  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

little  quotation  from  them,  but  Johnson's  talk 
is  recorded.  Pity  that  he  had  not  given  his 
meaning  expression.  The  comparison  is  between 
other  talkers'  talk  and  Johnson's  talk.  As  other 
talkers'  talk  has  not  been  mentioned,  there  is 
no  justification  for  saying  "Johnson's."  The 
last  "it"  in  the  passage  has  no  antecedent; 
for  evidently  it  refers  to  Carlyle's  talk,  and  not 
to  the  "talk"  he  "talked  against." 

If  the  endowed  journal  did  not  in  due  time  secure  a 
wide  circle  of  readers  it  would  indicate  that  it  was  not 
succeeding  in  what  it  aimed  to  do.       (Independent.) 

Here  we  have  the  pronouns  set  thick.  Do 
they  all  refer  to  "journal"?  I  suppose  the  first 
refers  to  the  fact. 

The  last  one  [gaseous  element]  announced  before 
xenon  was  Prof.  Brush's  claim  for  etherion,  which  has 
not,  however,  been  isolated,  and  perhaps  cannot  be. 
It  awaits  confirmation.  (Independent.) 

Yes,  very  likely  the  writer's  "It"  refers  to 
"claim";  but  "claim"  was  a  gaseous  element, 
and  so  it  is  a  gaseous  element  (etherion),  after 
all,  that  "awaits  confirmation." 

The  trees  of  the  fields  and  plantations  writhed  like 
miserable  men  as  the  air  wound  its  way  swiftly  amongst 


IT  205 

them :  the  lowest  portions  of  their  trunks,  that  had 
hardly  ever  been  known  to  move,  were  visibly  rocked 
by  the  fiercer  gusts,  distressing  the  mind  by  its  painful 
unwontedness,  as  when  a  strong  man  is  seen  to  shed 
tears.  (Hardy.) 

This  piece  of  imaginative  description  ought 
to  have  a  fair  chance  to  quicken  the  imagination 
of  the  reader.  As  good  style  in  general  is  a 
transparent  medium  through  which  the  reader 
comes  straight  to  the  thought,  so  good  sentence- 
structure  allows  and  aids  the  mind  of  the  reader 
to  commune  undistracted  with  the  writer's  mind. 
If  the  subject  of  the  participle  "distressing" 
were  so  worded  as  somehow  to  express  that  which 
caused  the  distress,  the  pronoun  "its"  would 
be  justified.  No  doubt  it  costs  more  work  to 
express  what  one  means  than  clumsily  to  suggest 
it  —  hence  the  "appalling  increase  every  day  in 
slipshod  writing."     See  Chapter  I. 

He  may  do  wrong,  but  he  does  not  set  out  to  do  so, 
and  he  does  not  choose  to  continue  in  it.  (Coe.) 

This  little  sentence  might  puzzle  a  foreigner 
learning  English.  The  verb  do  is  used  four 
times,  and  in  two  ways  —  correctly,  of  course, 
although  not  very  "elegantly."  Is  "wrong"  an 
adverb,    or   a   noun?     If   it   is   an   adverb,  does 


206 


WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 


"so"  correspond  to  "wrong",  or  is  "do  so"  used 
in  the  sense  of  take  such  a  course?  If  "wrong" 
is  an  adverb,  moreover,  there  is  no  formal  ante- 
cedent for  "it",  and  we  have  the  meaning  sug- 
gested but  not  expressed;  for  to  the  English  ear 
"do  wrong"  does  not  mean  the  same  as  doing 
wrong.  If  "wrong"  be  a  noun,  then  the  word 
can  be  regarded  as  antecedent  of  "it."  I  believe 
that  in  this  sentence  "wrong  ",  though  it  be  close 
to  the  border  line,  is  not  a  noun  but  an  adverb; 
and  that  "it",  standing  in  the  writer's  mind  for 
the  notion  of  doing  wrong,  is  not  properly  used. 

At  this  point  I  chance  to  pick  up  a  copy  of 
the  North  American  Review.  An  anonymous 
book-notice  begins, 

One  necessarily  feels  distrustful  twinges  in  reading 
a  book  of  criticism  so  hastily  written  that  it  falls  short 
of  being  grammatical. 

That  I  might  have  written  myself.  Quoting 
from  the  book  the  sentence,  "He  was  to  recall 
how  often  he  had  chanted  or  shouted  or  otherwise 
declaimed  Hugo's  Gastibelza  on  horseback  ",  the 
writer  says, 

There  is  nothing  but  the  small  "h"  for  horseback 
to  save  one  from  fancying  the  poem  entitled  "Gasti- 
belza on  Horseback." 


IT  207 

That  has  an  encouragingly  familiar  sound ;    but : 

On  the  other  hand,  Mr.  Thomas  seems  to  have 
read  his  poet  punctiliously  and  patiently  .  .  .  from 
end  to  end.  It  is  not  his  fault  if  he  did  not  and  could 
not  mark  its  rare  and,  in  many  directions,  unexcelled 
beauties. 

Perhaps  his  own  phrase  "from  end  to  end"  led 
the  reviewer  astray.  At  any  rate,  after  so  promis- 
ing a  start,  he  has  given  me  one  more  example, 
a  melancholy  one,  of  the  misuse  of  It. 

Light  literature  could  hardly  be  expected  from  a 
magazine  conducted  by  either  Mr.  Cave  or  Dr.  John- 
son ;  indeed,  it  is  only  within  our  own  memory  that 
the  antiquarian  features  of  this  periodical  were  set 
aside ;  but  it  was  lighter  than  could  be  found  in  any 
other  miscellany  of  the  time,  and  within  its  first  years 
it  had  a  score  of  imitators.  (Alden.) 

I  am  unable  to  think  Mr.  Alden  means  that 
"this  periodical"  was  "lighter  than  could  be 
found  in  any  other  miscellany  of  the  time."  On 
the  other  hand,  the  second  it  cannot  properly  refer 
to  "Light  literature";  and  if  we  refer  it  to  the 
notion  of  the  literature  in  the  magazine,  we  have 
to  think  either  that  the  following  pronouns  refer 
to  this  literature,  or  that,  referring  to  the  peri- 
odical, they  are  used  in  a  most  indefensible  way. 


XXVI 

OTHER  PRONOUNS 

On  page  202  of  Pater's  "Appreciations"  I 
find  a  sentence  beginning  "His  eloquence." 
It  soon  appears  that  the  eloquence  is  that  of 
King  Richard  II.  But  between  this  sentence 
and  "Richard  is  the  most  sweet-tongued  of  them 
all"  (p.  201)  there  have  intervened  two  or  three 
sentences,  containing,  by  my  count,  one  hundred 
and  fifty-seven  words ;  and  in  these  sentences  I 
find  no  word  that  can  possibly  serve  as  antecedent 
for  "His."  Pater's  excellent  criticism  of  Shak- 
spere  would  be  better  if  he  condescended  to  write, 
as  Shakspere  himself  wrote,  in  a  lucid  way.  Yes, 
Shakspere's  lines  were  written  for  the  theatre, 
where  they  had  to  be  understood  at  once  or  not 
at  all,  and  Pater's  essays,  no  doubt,  were  written 
for  the  leisurely  reader ;  but  does  Shakspere's 
work  read  any  the  worse  for  its  lucidity?  No 
clear  writing  is  the  worse  for  its  clearness. 

208 


OTHER  PRONOUNS  209 

On  page  78  of  "Mere  Literature"  (Wilson)  a 
sentence  begins  with  "His  father",  meaning  the 
father  of  Walter  Bagehot.     Three  sentences  follow, 
each  beginning  with  "He",  and  referring  to  the 
father .     Then  comes  one  beginning  "His  mother", 
and   telling   of   Walter   Bagehot' s  mother.     Yes, 
it  is  possible  to  understand ;  but  even  the  appear- 
ance of  confusion  is  to  be  avoided.     Most  read- 
ers do  not  take  in  a  whole  page  at  a  glance.     In 
the  following  passage  from  Mr.  Gilder,  one  form 
or  another  of  the  pronoun  he  is  used  eight  times, 
sometimes  referring  to  Mr.  Cleveland,  sometimes 
to  Mr.  Carlisle.     Finally,  for  no  very  apparent 
reason,  the  pronoun  is  dropped,  and  "Carlisle" 
takes  its  place.     Bringing   in   the   name   at  the 
beginning  of  the  third  sentence  would  have  made 
the  remaining  sentences  clear  in  form.     Here  is 
the  passage : 

In  speaking  of  Mr.  Carlisle  he  said  he  was  perfectly 
sure  of  his  disinterestedness.  His  very  latest  speech, 
that  of  the  24th  of  April,  he  considered  a  new  proof  of 
this.  He  might  have  said  to  himself  that  the  whirligig 
of  time,  that  brings  such  strange  things  around,  might 
bring  something  to  him.  Nevertheless,  he  was  per- 
fectly outspoken  and  frank.  Carlisle  might  have  said, 
"There  is  no  necessity  for  me  to  add  to  my  sound- 
money  record." 


210 


WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 


I  will  now  group  some  passages 


His  [Balzac's]  erratic  and 
laboured  methods  of  revision, 
as  recorded  by  Theophile 
Gautier  in  his  Portraits  Con- 
temporains,  are  such  an  in- 
teresting object  lesson  of  the 
extent  to  which  the  fever  for 
revision  may  be  carried  that 
it  seems  worth  while  to  quote 
him  here  rather  extensively. 
(Cooper.) 

Such  study  belongs  to 
the  enthusiast  perhaps,  to  the 
reader  who  finds  in  litera- 
ture the  greater  part  of  his 
mental  life ;  in  general  he 
must  content  himself  with 
something  far  short  of  this. 
.  .  .     (Woodberry.) 

Until  he  heard  those  grave 
notes  he  had  not  seen  much 
of  Ottalie  in  her,  except  in 
the  way  in  which  she  sat, 
the  head  a  little  drooped,  the 
hands  composed,  in  a  pose 
which  no  art  could  quite 
describe,  it  was  so  like  her. 
(Masefield.) 


He  said  to  an  intimate 
friend  that  the  boy  evidently 
was  going  to  be  like 
him ;  because  untruthfulness 
seemed    to    be    no    tempta- 


Mr.  Cooper's  last  pronoun 
ought  to  refer  to  Balzac,  but 
does  refer  to  Gautier.  Else- 
where in  his  book  Cooper 
quotes,  presumably  with  ap- 
proval, Prof.  Barrett  Wen- 
dell's statement :  "Clearness 
I  may  define  as  the  distin- 
guishing quality  of  a  style 
that  cannot  be  misunder- 
stood." 

Of  course  the  pronoun 
"he"  should  refer  to  "en- 
thusiast." I  judge  from  the 
whole  context  that  it  does  in 
fact  refer  to  the  general 
reader,  as  distinguished  from 
the  enthusiast.  There  should 
be  no  question. 

The  last  clause  seems  to 
be  used  to  give  a  reason  why 
"no  art  could  quite  describe" 
the  "pose";  but  it  is  not 
too  easy  to  see  that  the  reason 
is  a  good  one.  Does  "her  ", 
at  the  end,  refer  to  Ottalie, 
or  to  the  other  woman? 
The  question  condemns  the 
sentence. 

He  paid  a  high  compliment 
to  the  boy,  and  to  one  other. 
Was  that  other  the  speaker, 
or  the  "intimate  friend"? 
Here  the  English   language, 


OTHER  PRONOUNS 


211 


tion   whatever  to   either   of 
them.     (Gilder.) 

...  he  will  never  carry 
the  philosophic  yoke  upon 
his  shoulders,  and  when  tired 
of  the  gray  monotony  of  her 
problems  .  .  .  will  always 
escape  gleefully.     (James.) 

If  he  and  his  friends  like 
to  drop  into  a  saloon  after 
midnight,  or  even  want  to 
hear  a  little  music  while 
they  drink  together  early  in 
the  evening,  he  is  breaking 
the  law  while- he  indulges  in 
either  of  them.  .  .  .  (Miss 
Addams.) 

He  dies,  and  his  equals 
debate  who  is  to  be  his  suc- 
cessor :  while  the  rest  of 
them  who  have  come  in  con- 
tact with  him,  very  probably 
hear  nothing  of  his  great 
launch  and  final  adieu  till 
the  final  winding  up  of  cash- 
accounts.  .  .  .     (Meredith.) 

No  one  will  understand 
rightly  anything  in  European 
politics  unless  they  start  from 
the  fact  that  Russia  .  .  . 
(Stead.) 

And  the  reason  for  this, 
of   course,    is   that   there   is 


unaided,    is    hopelessly   am- 
biguous. 

I  have  diligently  con- 
sidered the  context,  and  can 
find  no  antecedent  for  "her." 
The  reference  is  doubtless  to 
the  problems  of  philosophy; 
but  the  pronoun  is  ill-used. 

No  antecedent  for  "  them." 
The  writer  seems  to  have 
been  thinking  of  dropping 
into  a  saloon,  and  of  hearing 
a  little  music.  The  English 
language  being  what  it  is, 
"to  drop"  and  "to  hear" 
cannot  properly  serve  as  an- 
tecedents for  "them." 

I  have  studied,  but  can- 
not make  out  that  "them" 
refers  to  any  persons  who 
have  been  mentioned.  It 
seems  to  be  equivalent  (in 
Meredith's  intention)  to 
those;  which  is  English,  and 
would  of  course  have  made 
the  sentence  clear. 

Mr.  Stead's  "they"  can- 
not grammatically  refer  to 
"one."  It  is  not  easy  to  be- 
lieve that  it  refers  to  "poli- 
tics." 

Put  it  in  place  of  "there  ", 
or  in  being  in  place  of  "to 


212 


WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 


nothing  especially  discredit- 
able to  the  average  man  or 
woman  to  be  unable  to  draw 
a  pig  with  their  eyes  blind- 
folded. .  .  .     (Cooper.) 

.  .  .  and  it  is  instructive 
to  compare  them  either  with 
the  lifeless  works  of  the 
Dutch  themselves,  or  with 
any  modern  imitations  of 
them,  as  for  instance  with 
the  seas  of  Calcott,  where 
all  the  light  is  white  and  all 
the  shadows  grey,  where  no 
distinction  is  made  between 
water  and  foam,  or  between 
real  and  reflective  shadow, 
and  which  are  generally 
without  evidence  of  the 
artists  having  ever  seen  the 
sea.     (Ruskin.) 

.  .  .  Pater  wrote  .  .  . 
the  little  essay  on  "Roman- 
ticism ",  which  re-appeared 
in  1889  as  the  postscript 
to  Appreciations,  which  may 
be  shortly  discussed  here. 
(Benson.) 

For  example,  we  are  fully 
justified  in  pitying  any  in- 
dividual or  any  people  who 
fails  to  see  the  fun.  .  .  . 
(Matthews.) 


be."  The  eyes  of  man, 
woman,  or  pig  are  not  prop- 
erly called  "their"  eyes. 
The  pig  and  the  pronoun 
could  be  spared. 

The  longer  a  sentence, 
the  more  need  of  clearness. 
Do  the  relative  adverb 
"where"  and  the  pronoun 
"which"  relate  to  "works" 
and  "imitations",  or  to 
"seas"?  According  to  the 
text  from  which  I  copy,  the 
reference  is  to  more  than  one 
artist ;  but  Ruskin  may  have 
written  artist's.  A  slight 
change  in  the  wording  would 
have  left  the  sentence  less 
at  the  printer's  mercy.  Note 
the  coupling  of  "which" 
with  "where." 

The  second  relative  might 
relate  to  any  one  of  three 
nouns.  It  does  relate  to 
"essay  ",  awkwardly  jumping 
the  first  relative  clause.  And 
why  "shortly"  for  briefly? 

Considered  as  the  work 
of  a  freshman,  this  would  be 
conspicuously  bad.  Yet  it 
is  the  work  of  a  veteran 
professor. 


The   demonstrative   words   such   and   so,    and 
even   the   adjective   other    ("this,   that,   and  the 


OTHER  PRONOUNS 


213 


other")  being  in  a  way  near  kin  to  pronouns, 
will  not  be  out  of  place  here. 


It  ended  only  in  the  recom- 
mendation to  "smash"  the 
trusts.  Such  legislation  was 
enacted.     (J.  R.  Commons.) 

Has  he  no  existence,  no 
purpose  in  life,  outside  of 
that  perpetual  gentleman 
in  waiting?  If  so,  Honora 
has  never  considered  it. 
(Churchill.) 

«.  .  .  education  that  is  un- 
organized, or  only  partly  so, 
in  libraries  and  the  daily  or 
other  periodical  literature. 
(T.  C.  Hall.) 

The  president  is  Professor 
Henry  Sidgwick,  known  by 
his  other  deeds  as  the  most 
incorrigibly  and  exasperat- 
ingly  critical  and  sceptical 
mind  in  England.     (James.) 


The  legislation  was  "  such  " 
as  what?  The  use  of  lan- 
guage is  to  express  thought, 
not  merely  suggest  it. 

"If  so"  —  that  is,  prop- 
erly speaking,  if  he  has  no 
existence,  etc.  But  this  I 
believe  to  be  the  opposite 
of  what  is  meant. 


The  compound  "unorgan- 
ized" cannot  at  the  same 
time  be  one  word  and  two. 
It  would  have  been  easy  to 
say  "  partly  "  organized. 

William  James  couldn't 
have  lived  to  be  old  —  he  was 
so  "incorrigibly"  young! 
But  "other  deeds"  implies 
deeds  mentioned  in  the  con- 
text ;   and  there  aren't  any. 


I  believe  there  are  many  writers  who  would 
gladly  pay  more  attention  to  good  form  if  their 
attention  were  from  time  to  time  drawn  to  ques- 
tions of  form  and  held  steadily  to  the  discussion 
of  them.  We  cannot  all  be  specialists  in  the 
same  line,  but  "we"  all  prefer  to  be  good  speakers 
and  writers.     Human  nature  and  the  conditions 


214  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

of  life  are  such  that,  even  with  the  best  of  inten- 
tions, one  does  not  learn  his  lesson  from  sweeping 
general  statements  and  occasional  hints  regard- 
ing their  application. 

This  by  way  of  apology,  if  any  be  needed,  for 
multiplication  of  quotations  and  criticisms  in  the 
parallel  columns. 


XXVII 

UNCLASSIFIED  CONFUSIONS 

I  pause  to  remark  that  it  is  time  for  a  New 
Protestantism;  for  a  Readers'  Rebellion;  per- 
haps a  Society  of  Self-respecting  Readers.  With 
the  verbal  liberality  of  the  British  fatherland, 
we  might  call  our  organization  The  League  for 
the  Dissemination  of  Correct  Views  as  to  the 
Courtesy  and  Consideration  Due  from  Writers 
to  Readers.  We  are  told  that  the  worm  will 
turn  —  the  trouble  with  the  vermis  Americanus 
is  that  he  won't  turn ;  he  makes  his  pathetic 
little  joke  on  himself,  lovable  humorous  beast 
that  he  is,  and  goes  on  getting  stepped  on. 

Doubtless  readers  as  such  have  no  legal  rights 
that  writers  are  bound  to  respect,  and  as  for 
moral  rights,  our  rudimentary  civilization  is 
slow  to  recognize  them;  but  we  untutored  sav- 
ages are  jealous  for  our  good  manners  —  get  it 
into  the  heads  of  authors  that  socially  it  is  bad 

215 


216  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

form  to  inflict  upon  us  their  misfit  combinations 
of  words,  and  they  will  begin  to  take  notice  of 
what  they  are  doing.  Our  unripe  democracy 
(if  I  may  mix  figures)  has  not  stopped  to  think. 
As  I  walk  the  streets  the  children  (for  whom, 
as  they  suppose,  the  world  was  made)  behave  like 
hens;  they  will  shy  a  little  rather  than  be  run 
over,  but  they  don't  understand  that  it  is  unseemly 
to  be  underfoot.  And  our  clever  writers,  from 
critics  to  college-presidents,  address  us  in  lan- 
guage more  seemly  for  a  first  draft  in  the  discreet 
privacy  of  the  study  than  for  gracious  public 
communication  where  we  are  in  a  way  their 
invited  guests.  Many  a  slovenly  article  or  book 
is  the  work  of  a  writer  whose  heart  is  the  home 
of  all  the  courtesies.  There  is  a  criticism  —  more 
discriminating,  indeed,  than  generous  —  that  ex- 
cludes social  vulgarity  from  our  dinner-tables; 
there  ought  to  be  a  criticism  that  would  exclude 
and  discourage  vulgarity  of  written  English. 

Without  raising  the  question  whether  one  who 
takes  himself  seriously  can  afford  to  read  the 
literature  of  the  day,  it  is  fair  to  appeal  to  its 
producers  not  only  for  courtesy  but  for  justice. 
Assuming,  with  them,  that  we  are  to  read  what 
they  write,  we  face  a  very  serious  question  —  that 


UNCLASSIFIED  CONFUSIONS 


217 


of  the  economy  of  attention.  If  we  are  to  read 
widely,  we  must  read  rapidly ;  but  we  cannot 
read  rapidly  if  we  are  held  up  continually  by 
obscurities  and  ambiguities,  and  we  cannot  read 
well,  or  with  rational  enjoyment,  if  we  hurry 
over  the  hard  places  unenlightened  and  uncon- 
vinced. It  is  a  choice  of  evils  —  waste  of  time 
and  strength,  or  mental  dyspepsia. 

Here  are  some  misstatements  or  ambiguities : 


If  he  thought  with  loath- 
ing of  his  former  life,  so  did 
she.     (Churchill.) 

Jesus  prayed  not  that  we 
be  taken  out  of  the  world, 
but  that  we  be  kept  in  it. 
(Hall.) 

It  has  its  distinct  meaning 
for  us,  and  we  will  carry  it 
into  all  our  reforming  activity. 
(Hall.) 

A  prince  was  to  come  who 
was  to  bear  her  away  from 
the  ragmen  and  the  boarding- 
houses  and  the  soot :  and 
incidentally,  and  in  spite  of 
herself,  Aunt  Mary  was  to 
come  too. 

But  not  only  does  such 
testimony  as  this  controvert 
our    comfortable    theory    of 


Judging  from  the  con- 
text, one  concludes  that  she 
was  thinking  of  her  own  life. 

This  sentence  gives  a 
sense  far  from  that  of  John, 
XVII,  15.  Have  we  here  a 
serious  pun  ? 

What  a  New-Yorker 
means  by  "  will  "  in  the  first 
person  is  so  uncertain  that 
this  sentence  is  not  clear. 

When  the  novelist  says 
that  "  Aunt  Mary  was  to 
come  too  ",  he  means  (accord- 
ing to  the  context)  that  she 
was  to  go  away  too.  It 
would  have  been  civil  to  ex- 
press the  meaning. 

Well,  what  about  "the 
very  facts"?  With  the  con- 
text in   hand,   doubtless   we 


218 


WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 


individual  frailty  as  the  ex- 
planation of  poverty,  but  the 
very  facts  of  poverty  them- 
selves.    (Holmes.) 

There  exists,  it  appears,  a 
class  of  persons  who,  either 
through  ignorance  or  indif- 
ference, or  often  through 
both  combined,  are  doing  all 
in  their  power  to  corrupt  the 
English  tongue.  (Louns- 
bury.) 


could  know  the  meaning; 
but  why  not  make  the  sen- 
tence good,  and  let  it  carry 
its  own  sense ! 

Which  "or"  is  correlated 
with  "either"  ?  Or  are  both 
so  correlated  ?  *  Professor 
Lounsbury  is  not  a  purist, 
else  one  might  judge  by  as- 
suming the  sentence  to  be 
formally  correct. 


The  last  sentence  of  Mr.  Woodberry's  book 
on  "The  Appreciation  of  Literature"  reads  as 
follows : 

The  great  thing  is  to  remain  alive,  in  one's  reading, 
and  nowhere  should  the  principle  of  life  be  more  sacredly 
guarded  than  in  its  most  immortal  presence,  imagina- 
tive literature  and  those  other  forms  that  take  their 
color  from  its  human  methods. 

There  may  be  a  good  reason  for  using  a  comma 
after  "alive  ",  and  for  not  using  a  semicolon  after 
"reading"  —  this  by  the  way.  The  sentence  as 
printed  puts  "imaginative  literature"  and  the  rest 

1  If  it  is  the  first "  or",  we  have  (1)  either  through  the  first  or  (through) 
the  second  —  or  [as  if  an  afterthought]  through  both.  If  the  second, 
(2)  either  through  one-of-tke-two  or  through  both.  If  both  (the  common 
either  .  .  .  or  .  .  .  or),  (3)  either  through  the  first  or  through  the 
second  or  through  both.  I  wish  not  to  quibble ;  but  I  wish  I  knew  the 
gentleman's  meaning.    If  he  were  a  purist,  I  should  settle  upon  "  (2)." 


UNCLASSIFIED   CONFUSIONS  219 

in  apposition  with  "its  most  immortal  presence." 
Now  imaginative  literature,  or  any  other  kind, 
cannot  possibly  be  identical  with  the  "presence" 
of  anything. 

Here  is  a  passage  from  Swinburne's  "The  Age  of 
Shakespeare" : 

It  [Marlowe's  Tamburlaine]  is  the  first  poem  ever 
written  in  English  blank  verse,  as  distinguished  from 
mere  rhymeless  decasyllabics;  and  it  contains  one  of 
the  noblest  passages  —  perhaps,  indeed,  the  noblest  in 
the  literature  of  the  world  —  ever  written  by  one  of 
the  greatest  masters  of  poetry  in  loving  praise  of  the 
glorious  delights  and  sublime  submission  to  the  ever- 
lasting limits  of  his  art. 

I  have  tried  faithfully  to  find  the  meaning  of  the 
second  clause. 

1.  Some  of  the  greatest  masters  of  poetry 
have  written  passages  in  loving  praise  of  the 
glorious  delights  of  their  art,  and  in  sublime  sub- 
mission to  its  everlasting  limits.  Marlowe's  Tam- 
burlaine contains  one  of  the  noblest  of  these  — 
perhaps  the  noblest  of  them  all. 

2.  Marlowe,  who  is  one  of  the  greatest  masters 
of  poetry,  has  written  a  number  of  passages  in 
loving  praise,  etc.  His  Tamburlaine  contains 
one  of  the  noblest  of  these  —  and  indeed  this  is 


220 


WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 


perhaps  the  noblest  passage  of  the  kind  in  the 
literature  of  the  world. 

If  the  clause  has  a  sense  that  was  clearly  con- 
ceived in  the  writer's  mind,  that  sense  would  seem 
to  be  indicated  either  by  "  1. "  or  by  "  2."  Neither 
interpretation  is  satisfactory.  Of  course  a  sen- 
tence so  badly  constructed  by  a  writer  of  ordinary 
ability  would  not  deserve  study. 

I  am  overstocked  with  specimens  which  I 
have  been  labeling,  for  my  own  convenience, 
"  Chaos." 


No  one  gave  surer  proofs 
of  that  sympathy  than  by 
the  way  in  which  he  [De 
Tocqueville]  philosophizes. 
(Brooks.) 


Not  a  sentence.  Part  of 
what  should  have  been  a 
sentence  is  missing,  the  other 
parts  are  flung  together. 


It  was  a  mistake  either  to 
print  the  report  at  all  or  to 
fail  to  give  it  the  widest 
possible  publicity.  (News- 
paper.) 


This  should  mean  that 
either  course  was  a  mistake. 
It  was  intended  to  convey 
that  if  one  was  not  a  mistake, 
the  other  was. 


Subordinate  conjunctions 
connect  clauses ;  co-ordinate 
conjunctions  connect  sen- 
tences.    (D.  J.  Hill.) 


A  coordinate  conjunction 
connects  subordinate  clauses, 
just  as  well  as  independent 
sentences. 


He  knew  that  Valmond 
understood  whereof  he  spoke. 
It  was  as  if  an  artist  saw  a 
young  genius  use  a  brush  on 


It  seems  pretty  nearly 
certain  that  if  Sir  Gilbert 
wrote  "watch",  he  meant 
(or  would  have  meant  if  he 


UNCLASSIFIED  CONFUSIONS 


221 


canvas  for  a  moment ;  a 
swordsman  watch  an  un- 
known master  of  the  sword. 
(Parker.) 

Hold  to  it  eternally  that 
the  clad  man  is  still  naked  if 
it  amuse  you  —  'tis  desig- 
nated in  the  bond;  but  the 
so-called  contradiction  is  a 
sterile  boon.  Like  Shylock's 
pound  of  flesh,  it  leads  to  no 
consequences.  It  does  not 
entitle  you  to  one  drop  of 
his  Christian  blood  either  in 
the  way  of  catarrh,  social 
exclusion,  or  what  further 
results  pure  nakedness  may 
involve.     (James.) 


had  been  quite  awake) 
watched.  But  the  infinitive 
starts  the  reader  on  the 
wrong  track. 

High  spirits  and  exuberant 
utterance.  Would  that  many 
another  scholar  and  writer 
might  keep  the  spirit  of  a 
boy  in  the  work  —  or  the 
productive  play  —  of  the 
grown  man.  But  the  boy 
needs  to  be  steadied  by  the 
man's  trained  hand.  He  has 
mixed  things,  I  think,  in  a 
way  that  is  much  more  boyish 
than  funny;  and  he  didn't 
even  stop  to  cut  out  the 
"either." 


This  is  the  work  of  a  "Ph.D.,  LL.D.",  scholar 
and  man  of  affairs,  who  has  been  lecturer  on  Politi- 
cal Economy  at  three  of  our  great  universities : 

Governor  Wilson's  sound  and  rational  point  of  view, 
that  no  matter  how  grave  an  injustice  may  have  been 
perpetrated,  if  its  tendrils  are  so  entwined  with  great 
national  interests  that  its  immediate  up-rooting  would 
cause  great  disturbance,  the  wise  thing  to  do  is  to 
bring  about  the  necessary  change  by  a  succession  of 
steps,  instead  of  all  at  once. 

It  was  printed  as  a  sentence,  and  presumably 
intended  by  the  writer  to  be  a  sentence;  but  it 
has  no  predicate.     Without  stopping  to  comment 


222  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

on  the  tendrils  of  a  grave  injustice,  I  note  that 
the  article  from  which  I  have  quoted  has  "... 
of  similar  portent  to  the  announcement  of  a  great 
discovery  in  science."  But  even  if  portent  (here 
a  pure  abstraction)  can  be  similar  to  an  announce- 
ment, the  author  probably  does  not  mean  that 
it  is.  Again,  "One  can  imagine  how  many 
political  descendants  of  Hon.  [sic;  it  sounds 
Japanese !]  Rufus  Choate  would  have  utilized 
the  occasion."  Ambiguous  enough.  These  de- 
scendants would  have  said  "that  labor  was  a 
doubly  important  factor  to  capital."  Comment 
is  needless.  There  are  two  non-exclamatory  sen- 
tences (according  to  the  punctuation)  in  which 
"so"  is  used  without  a  correlative.  There  are 
two  cases  of  "straddle."  The  statement  is 
made  that  "there  seems  practical  certainty." 
There  is  punctuation  which  not  only  is  bad 
but  makes  a  bad  ambiguity.  And  such  an 
article  is  printed  in  a  (relatively)  high-class 
weekly. 

Return  we  now  to  the  narrow  columns. 

Retribution    they    should  Surely    this    is    not    the 

have,  but  let  them  have  it  way  worthy  of  a  great  author 

in  the  only  way  worthy  of  to  write  —  if  I  may  venture 

a    great    people    to    inflict,  to  imitate  him. 
(Lowell.) 


UNCLASSIFIED  CONFUSIONS 


223 


With  a  representation, 
three  fifths  of  it  based  on 
the  assumption  that  negroes 
are  men,  the  South  turns 
upon  us  and  insists  on  our 
acknowledging  that  they  are 
things.     (Lowell.)  l 

A  single  man  in  the  Mis- 
souri valley  can  manage  to 
till  as  large  an  area  as  a  whole 
village  in  the  Nile  valley  can 
produce. 

At  the  worst  he  would 
stand  where  he  had  stood 
before  I  crossed  his  path  — 
with  but  one  man  between 
him  and  the  throne,  and  that 
man  an  impostor  . 
("Anthony  Hope.") 

.  .  .  engaged  in  appeasing 
the  great  British  hunger  for 
news ;  second  only  to  that 
for  beef,  it  seems,  and  equally 
acceptable  salted  when  it 
cannot  be  had  fresh. 
(Meredith.) 

As  there  is  hardly  any 
situation,  however,  so  in- 
teresting to  reflect  upon  as 


If  two  sevenths  of  the 
population  were  free,  Lowell's 
figures  were  correct.  Count- 
ing 3,700,000  slaves,  we  had 
in  1861,  according  to  Lowell, 
1,480,000  free  Southerners. 
There  were,  in  fact,  5,300,000. 

This  was  written  by  a 
great  journalist.  If  a  whole 
village  produced  an  area,  it 
would  be  a  case  of  "made 
land." 

Before  "I"  crossed  his 
path,  the  one  man  between 
Michael  and  the  throne,  if  I 
have  the  story  aright,  was 
not  an  impostor,  but  the 
King.  "I"  (Rassendyll)  was 
the  impostor. 

Speaking  of  one  of  Mere- 
dith's lawless  expressions,  an 
admirer  of  his  work  said, 
"He  gets  atmosphere",  and 
so  on.  Probably  the  idea  of 
British  news-hunger  "salted" 
gives  "atmosphere." 

Atmosphere,  again.  Quite 
seriously,  (1)  if  the  words 
from  "without"  to  "pride" 


1  Constitution,  Art.  I,  See.  II,  Par.  3.  Computing  on  the  basis 
of  John  Fiske's  figures  for  the  whole  South,  we  have  about  twenty- 
two  seventy-fifths  (less  than  half  of  L.'s  three  fifths)  of  the  repre- 
sentation in  '61  "based  on  the  assumption"  that  a  negro  is  three 
fifths  of  a  man. 


224 


WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 


that  of  a  man  without  a 
penny  in  his  pocket,  and  a 
gizzard  full  of  pride,  we 
will  leave  Mr.  Evan  Har- 
rington to  what  adven- 
tures may  befall  him.  .  .  . 
(Meredith.) 

In  any  other  than  an 
heiress,  she  would  probably 
have  thought :  "  This  is  in- 
deed a  disgusting  little  ani- 
mal, and  most  unfeminine 
conduct."     (Meredith.) 

Nothing  was  better  known 
to  Fancy  than  the  extrava- 
gant manner  in  which  these 
circular  knots  or  eyes  [in 
panes  of  "knotty"  green 
glass]  distorted  everything 
seen  through  them  from  the 
outside —  .  .  .  scattering  the 
spokes  of  cart-wheels,  and 
bending  the  straight  fir- 
trunks  into  semicircles. 

(Hardy.) 


were  written  by  an  ordinary 
man  they  would  be  inexcus- 
able nonsense ;  and  (2)  being 
the  work  of  an  extraordi- 
nary man,  they  are  con- 
spicuously nonsensical  and 
inexcusable. 

"In  any  other  than"  a 
genius,  one  would  probably 
have  thought:  "This  is  in- 
deed a  chaotic  little  sentence, 
and  most  unreasonable  ex- 
pression." 

Cart-wheels  and  trees  are 
seen  through  windows  from 
the  inside.  This,  I  take  it, 
is  not  a  case  of  getting  at- 
mosphere, but  of  getting  the 
sense  wrong.  If  a  proof- 
reader did  it,  remember  that 
Hardy  can  have  his  own  way 
with  the  proofs,  provided  he 
will  take  the  trouble  to  at- 
tend to  them. 


Before  leaving  the  subject  of  Clearness  I  wish 
to  comment  upon  some  passages  taken  from  a 
small  fraction  of  Mr.  Frederic  Harrison's  famous 
essay,  "  The  Choice  of  Books." 

Yet  are  all  men  desirable  companions,  much  less 
teachers,  able  to  give  advice,  even  of  those  who  get 
reputation  and  command  a  hearing? 


UNCLASSIFIED   CONFUSIONS  225 

I  assume  that  "able"  qualifies  "teachers." 
The  expression  "much  .  .  .  advice",  then,  being 
in  form  entirely  foreign  to  the  context,  might 
have  been  marked  accordingly,  by  using  the  dash 
before  and  after.  And  still  the  sentence  would 
have  been  bad. 

And  this,  which  comes  home  to  all  of  us  at  times, 
presses  hardest  upon  those  who  have  lost  the  oppor- 
tunity of  systematic  education,  who  have  to  educate 
themselves,  or  who  seek  to  guide  the  education  of  their 
young  people. 

1.  Are  the  three  relative  clauses  after  "those" 
coordinate,  as  they  should  be?  If  so,  we  have 
three  distinct  classes  embarrassed  by  "an  illimit- 
able and  ever-swelling  literature."  But  he  can 
hardly  mean  to  particularize  and  distinguish 
(a)  those  who  have  had  the  opportunity  and 
lost  it,  (b)  those  who  have  to  educate  themselves, 
and  (c)  those  who  seek  to  guide,  etc. 

2.  If  the  two  following  "  who  "-clauses  de- 
pend upon  "those  who  .  .  .  education",  then 
the  sentence  is  not  only  ambiguous,  but  so  need- 
lessly awkward  as  to  be  unworthy  of  a  scholar. 

Generations  of  men  of  culture  have  laboured  to 
organise  a  system  of  reading  and  materials  appropriate 
for  the  methodical  education  of  men  in  academic  lines. 


226  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

1.  Beginning  with  "materials",  we  may  take 
it  as  object  of  "organize  ",  or  as  governed  by  "of." 

2.  Beginning  with  "appropriate",  we  may  take 
it  as  qualifying  "system",  or  "reading  and  ma- 
terials", or  "materials." 

3.  We  know  what  "in  academic  lines"  depends 
upon;  but  there  is  a  formal  ambiguity,  which 
might  have  been  avoided. 

...  as  men  who  in  thorny  paths  have  borne  the 
heat  and  burden  of  the  day  might  give  a  clue  to  their 
journey  to  those  who  have  yet  a  morning  and  a  noon. 

Whose  journey?  The  pronoun  "their"  should 
refer  to  "men",  but,  in  view  of  the  context, 
probably  does  not.  Why  should  there  be  any 
conflict,  real  or  apparent,  between  sense  and 
sentence-structure?  Further,  there  is  an  avoid- 
able ambiguity  in  form. 

It  is  so  certain  that  information  ...  is  now  grown 
to  proportions  so  utterly  incalculable  and  prodigious, 
that  even  the  learned  .  .  .  can  but  pick  up  some 
crumbs  that  fall  from  the  table  of  truth. 

Wlien  Frederic  Harrison  writes  a  sentence  like 
this,  we  may  think  he  has  used  one  "so"  in  the 
schoolgirl  way ;  but  it  is  only  after  some  examina- 
tion of  the  sentence,  if  at  all,  that  we  can  be  sure 


UNCLASSIFIED   CONFUSIONS  227 

he  has.     Here,  the  context  does  not  give  one  the 
needed  help  by  justifying  such  use. 

Indeed,  we  may  easily  so  act  that  we  may  make  it 
[the  art  of  printing]  a  clog  on  the  progress  of  the  human 
mind,  a  real  curse  and  not  a  boon. 

I  find  the  repetition  of  "we  may"  by  no  means 
"elegant" ;  and,  style  aside,  I  do  not  believe  Mr. 
Harrison's  thought  was  so  complicated  as  to  re- 
quire the  repetition.     Why  not  so  act  as  to  make  it  ? 


EASE 


XXVIII 

PRELIMINARY 

The  technical  use  of  the  word  ease  to  denote 
a  positive  quality  of  style  is  not  recognized  in 
my  dictionary.  So  much  the  worse,  again,  for 
the  dictionary.  Professor  A.  S.  Hill  defined  Ease 
long  ago  as  "the  quality  which  makes  language 
agreeable."  It  is  not  necessary,  nor  always  to 
be  desired,  that  the  reader  should  know  why 
the  language  is  agreeable,  or  even  stop  to  think 
that  it  is  agreeable.  The  writer  who  goes  ""to 
work  to  exhibit  the  pleasing  features  of  hjs  style 
is  on  dangerous  ground;  let  him  beware  lest 
by  posinghe  violate  the  very  principle  of  ease. 

The  quality  that  makes  the  reader  enjoy  the 
style  may  come  legitimately  (1)  from  craftsman- 
ship  which  avoids  offenses  against  ease ;  (%\ 
from  a_gracious  personality,  liberally  cultivated, 
whose  medium  of  expression  is  inevitably  marked 
by  grace  and  distinction ;  (3)  from  an  enthusiasm, 

231 


232  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

always  under  control,  which _  can  express  itself 
in  nothing  short  of  a  warm,  rich,  or  even  exuber- 
ant style  —  from  a  wealth  of  thought,  of  feeling, 
of  imagination,  which  creates  for  itself  such 
genuine  and  generous  eloquence  as,  for  example, 
we  have  in  Newman  and  Ruskin  at  their  best. 

There  be  not  many  so  well  born,  well  trained, 
and  well  read,  and  withal  so  informed  with  the 
spirit  of  all  goodness  and  beauty,  as  to  be  effec- 
tually called  to  the  higher  ranges  of  literary  ex- 
pression ;  and  even  for  such  there  is  no  short  and 
easy  road  —  though  there  is  indeed  a  royal  road 
—  to  their  destination.  But  there  are,  and  will 
continue  to  be,  countless  writers  of  higher  or 
lower  degree  who  ought  to  do  their  work  far  better 
than  they  have  done  it,  and  far  better  than  ordi- 
nary writers  have  ever  done  it.  For  all  _such  it 
is  important  that  they  shouldat  least  know  what 
to  avoid ;  and  knowing  what  to  avoid  is  in  effect 
knowing  what  to  aim  at  and  strive  ^fnr.  To 
trained  workmen  I  do  not  profess  to  give  instruc- 
tion ;  but  because  in  my  own  experience  to  have 
my  attention  called  to  an  error  has  been  so  often 
the  beginning  of  an  effort  henceforth  to  avoid 
it,  I  have  confidence  that  other  sincere  workmen 
will  be  interested  and  helped  if  I  make  them  think 


PRELIMINARY  233 

of  faults  to  which  they  have  paid  little  attention 
hitherto.  And  confidence  in  this  regard  is  not 
without  support  from  observation.  I  have  reason 
to  think  that  not  only  a  beginner,  but  even  an 
able  veteran  may  respond  readily  and  easily  to 
suggestion  along  the  lines  of  this  book;  may 
welcome  these  simple  criticisms  when  they  apply 
to  his  own  work,  as  well  as  be  quick  to  see  their 
bearing  upon  the  work  of  others. 

"The  quality  that  makes  language  agreeable" 
manifests  itself  in  many  ways.  The  surprising 
doctrine  that  style  is  a  matter  of  "cadence,  and 
sound-sequence"  1  would  narrow_gojodLstyIe-jdown 
to  a  single  specific  quality  under  the_general  head 
of  ease  —  i.e.,  to  euphony.  Such  definition  would 
make  it  a  fraction,  only,  of  what  is  not  the  most 
important  "among  half-a-dozen  requisites  of  good 
discourseTTEase  indeed  requires  pleasing  sounds 
in  agreeable  sequences  and  relations;  and  this 
requirement  forbids  cloying  excess  of  im  linked 
sweetness  long  drawn  out ",  effeminate  monotony 
of  soft  smooth  speech  —  the  overdoing  of  euphony, 
which  is  not  pleasing  to  the  cultivated ^taste. 
Ease  forbids  not  only  what  jars  upon  the  ear, 
but   alPjgSblnations   and   collocations^  whether 

1  See  page  10. 


234  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

euphonious  or  not,  that  offend  the  sense  of  fit- 


ness. 

IFyou  attain  ease,  what  you  write  will  be  liter- 
ally easy  to  read.  There  must  be  no  ambiguity 
or  obscurity  —  every  sin  against  clearness  yio- 
lates  ease  —  no  strain  upon  the  attention  through 

excessive  length  of  sentences  or   needless   cqm- 

»  .11       - 

plexity  of  structure,  no  needless  toil  of  memory, 

no  over-driving  the  wits  to  keep  up  with  mere 

displays  of  cleverness;    for  ease  forbids  imposi- 

^  —  * 

tion  upon  the  reader  of  labor  beyond  what  the 

natureTof  the  thought  or  the  essential  difficulty  of 
the  subject  requires.1  All  that  is  awkward  and 
clifhisy,  of  course,  is  out  of  place.  Every  viola- 
tion   of   good   taste,  whether  in  language  or  in 

**  -i       — —  i«* 

subject-matter,  is  a  sin  against  ease.  Dulness, 
banality,  tediousness,  all  manner  of  "wasteful 
and  ridiculous  excess  ",  is  the  enemy  of  ease. 

Keeping  strictly  within  the  definition,  I  have 
shown  some  of  its  implications  without  trying 
to  give  them  all.     This  is  to  prepare  the  reader, 

1  Thackeray  came  nearest  to  the  exclusion  of  the  unpolite.  Later, 
George  Meredith,  with  aristocratic  hauteur,  forced  that  exclusion, 
and  even,  through  individual  peculiarities  of  style  and  method, 
made  his  fiction  insufferably  difficult  to  many  of  the  polite.  .  .  . 
Thomas  Hardy,  the  greatest  master  of  English  fiction,  presents  no 
such  difficulty,  and  has  compelled  all  classes  of  readers.     (Alden.) 


PRELIMINARY  235 

if  perchance  he  has  given  little  thought  to  these 
matters,  for  seeing  readily  the  bearing  upon  our 
present  theme  of  many  and  various  misuses  of 
language,  the  work  of  many  writers  wise  or 
foolish,  some  of  which  might  seem  too  insignificant 
to  dwell  upon.  Be  it  added,  with  all  emphasis, 
that  the  quality  of  ease  is  abundantly  worth 
cultivating  for  any  andevery  purpose  of  communi- 
cation  by  means  of  words  written  or  spoken. 


XXIX 


TWO  FORMS  OF  CLUMSINESS 

The  split  infinitive  is  so  common  that  it  would 
be  a  waste  of  time  to  gather  many  illustrations 
of  its  use.  Let  us  admit  that  it  can  hardly  be 
regarded  as  a  solecism,  and  that  much  may  be 
said  in  its  defense.  Yet  there  is  truth  in  the 
assertion  that  careful  writers  avoid  it,  and  there 
is  reason  for  avoiding  it. 

V  To  simultaneously  send  two  messages"  shows 
the  needless  "  split  ",  and  so  does  Mr.  Roosevelt's 
"to,  in  revenge,  assail  a  camp."  I  quote  also 
from  Miss  Jewett : 

She  sent  for  a  tuner,  and  used  to  successfully  coax 
the  long-imprisoned  music  from  the  antiquated  piano, 
and  sing  for  her  visitors  by  the  hour. 

.  .  .  when  she  makes  mistakes  she  is  sorrier  and  more 
ready  to  hopefully  try  again  than  any  girl  I  know. 

I  suppose  most  "careful  writers"  would  consider 
at  least  the  first  three  of  these  split  infinitives 

236 


TWO  FORMS  OF  CLUMSINESS  237 

inelegant ;  and  I  confess  I  do  not  like  the  fourth. 
The  combination  "used  to  successfully  coax" 
presents  a  very  harsh  sequence  of  consonants, 
easily  avoided ;  and  the  omission  of  other  before 
"girl"  is  a  license  which  might  be  left  to  writers 
of  less  distinction.  A  newspaper,  defending  the 
split  infinitive,  gives  the  sentence,  "Negotiations 
are  being  made  to  further  cement  friendship" 
(whose  author  "asserts  that  the  English  cannot 
be  improved"),  and  "I  wish  to  more  than  thank 
you."  If  the  first  cannot  be  improved,  throw 
it  away,  and  be  rid  of  the  ill-expressed  "Negotia- 
tions are  being  made  ",  which  is  worse  than  the 
rest  of  it.  I  wish  to  say  that  I  am  more  than  thank- 
ful is  one  of  various  forms  which  might  easily 
take  the  place  of  the  second. 

He  that  splits  the  infinitive  recklessly  will  some- 
times do  it  clumsily.  I  venture  the  opinion  that 
in  nine  cases  out  of  ten,  if  not  in  forty-nine  out  of 
fifty,  the  modifier  of  the  infinitive  may  be  put 
elsewhere  than  after  the  to,  without  sacrifice  of 
clearness,  force,  ease,  or  anything  else  worth 
saving.  It  is  the  height  of  folly  to  assume  that 
words  once  set  down  must  stand  unchanged. 
To  shrink  from  the  labor  of  needed  revision  argues 
not  only  congenital  fatigue,  but  want  of  respect 


238  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

both  for  oneself  and  for  the  reader.  Let  us  highly 
resolve  that  if  we  ever  split  an  infinitive,  we  will 
know  the  reason  why. 

I  take  pleasure  in  quoting  a  paragraph  from 
Professor  A.  S.  Hill's  "Principles  of  Rhetoric"  : 

Ease  prohibits  an  arrangement  that  throws  the 
emphasis  on,  and  thus  causes  a  suspension  of  the  sense 
at,  a  particle  or  other  unimportant  word  (as  in  this 
sentence).  Such  an  arrangement  is  hostile  to  clear- 
ness, for  it  obliges  the  mind  to  halt  at  the  very  points 
which  it  would  naturally  hurry  over;  it  is  also  hostile 
to  force,  for  it  emphasizes  words  that  do  not  "deserve 
distinction"  at  the  expense  of  those  that  do. 

This  arrangement  I  venture  to  call  a  straddle. 
In  the  professor's  sentence  two  imaginary  lines, 
symbolic  of  grammatical  relation,  diverge  from 
the  noun  "particle"  to  the  italicized  prepositions. 
I  do  not  know  that  the  Yale  champion  of  usage 
and  idiom  defended  the  straddle  —  perhaps  if 
his  attention  had  been  called  to  the  distinguished 
names  of  those  who  have  employed  it  (vid.  infra; 
cf.  Hill,  p.  198  sq.),  he  would  have  lifted  up  his 
clarion  voice  in  its  behalf.  Here  are  some  cases, 
all  interesting  —  though  not  all  of  the  same  type. 

...  a    bull    even    better  This    matches    well    with 

than,  although  not  quite  so  Professor  Hill's  specifications, 
old  as,  mine.     (Roosevelt.)         quoted  above. 


TWO  FORMS  OF  CLUMSINESS 


239 


Some  minor  defects  de- 
veloped, and  were  quickly, 
or  rather  being,  corrected. 
(Naval  officer.) 

This  power  has  never 
been  widely,  but  in  many 
cases  it  has  been  deeply,  felt. 
(Mabie.) 

...  a  hardy,  though  not 
so  strenuous  climate  as  to 
diminish  the  vitality  .  .  . 
(Shaler.) 

...  a  practice  very  com- 
mon among  ships  in  foreign 
parts,  by  which  you  get  rid 
of  the  books  you  have  read 
and  re-read,  and  a  supply  of 
new  ones  in  their  stead  .  .  . 
(Dana.) 

...  it  may  irritate  and 
antagonize,  but  can  never 
bore,  the  reader.  (Miss 
Scudder.) 

.  .  .  has  also  been  good 
enough  to  read,  and  suggest 
corrections  in  the  preliminary 
essays.     (Lang.) 

These  are  much  more 
familiar  with  and  naturally 
are  much  more  acted  upon 
by  the  great  literature  of  the 
past  than  by  any  gram- 
matical treatises  of  the 
present.     (Lounsbury.) 


When  an  accomplished 
sailor  tries  his  best  to  do  his 
worst,  expect  results. 

The  straddle  is  never  an 
easy  attitude  ;  this  sentence 
seems  weak  on  its  legs. 

Transfer  of  one  word 
would  have  transformed  an 
exceedingly  awkward  piece 
of  English. 

A  boyish  and  breezy  play 
on  "get",  this  coordinating 
"rid"  and  "supply"  as  its 
complements.  I  wonder  if 
he  smiled  when  he  wrote  the 
sentence.  Probably  he  did 
not  see  the  joke. 

Not  extremely  bad ;  but 
why  should  it  not  have  been 
made  smooth  and  faultless  ? 

Here,  and  elsewhere,  Lang 
omits  the  second  comma. 
No  punctuation,  I  think,  can 
make  this  arrangement  good. 

This  fully  meets  the  Har- 
vard man's  specifications, 
unless  the  absence  of  commas 
be  counted  in  its  favor,  and 
adds  to  the  awkwardness  of 
the  straddle  that  of  an  un- 
symmetrical  comparison. 


240  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

.  .  .  that     the     lad     had  According    to    the    punc- 

now     reached,     indeed     for  tuation,  had  now  reached  at 

some  days  had  stood  halting,  one  of  the  great  partings  of  the 

at  one  of  the  great  partings  ways.     This    is    going    from 

of  the  ways.     (Allen.)  bad  straddle  to  worse. 

The   easy,    and   therefore  He  approves  the  straddle, 

the  usual,  course  .  .  .      (A.      then,  except    on    "unimpor- 
S.  Hill.)  tant"  words? 

A  few  more  cases  are  so  bad  that  they  ought 
to  be  exhibited.  I  do  not  quote  from  Ruskin, 
because  the  specimens  I  have  from  him  are  not  of 
special  interest. 

.  .  .  that  exuberant  mass  of  goods  with  which  all 
human  nature  is  in  travail,  and  groaning  to  bring  to 
the  light  of  day.     (James.) 

.  .  .  the  anarchy  he  has  allowed  himself  to  be  made 
a  tool  of  by  evoking.     (Lowell.) 

.  .  .  the  wise  and  radiant  talk  to  which  all  the 
world  has  listened  and  will  miss.     (Aldrich.) 

.  .  .  but  it  has  not  yet,  and  never  will  be,  thoroughly 
adopted  by  his  imagination.     (Stevenson.) 

.  .  .  one  against  whom,  haply,  he  had  bumped  in 
a  crowded  thoroughfare,  and  had  with  cordial  polite- 
ness begged  pardon  of.     (Meredith.) 

I  confess  I  do  not  like  the  name  straddle;  but 
it  is  better,  I  think,  than  the  clumsy  arrangement 
for  which  it  stands. 


XXX 

PUNCTUATION  AND  EASE 

In  the  preceding  chapter  I  could  not  keep  clear 
of  the  subject  of  punctuation;  in  this,  I  must 
recur  for  a  moment  to  the  subject  of  straddle  — 
for  the  prolific  Pater  involves  me  in  both. 

He  writes  of  "the  loss  of,  or  carelessness  for 
personal  beauty  even  in  those  whom  men  have 
wronged,"  achieving  both  a  straddle  and  a  squint- 
ing construction,  and  omitting  the  commas  after 
"for"  and  "beauty"  which  his  own  painful  system 
of  punctuation  seems  to  require.  A  little  study 
leads  to  the  conclusion  that  "in"  connects  "those" 
with  "loss"  and  "carelessness"  —  but  the  rela- 
tions of  words  to  each  other  within  a  small  frag- 
ment of  a  sentence  should  be  plain  without 
study;  and  all  the  more  when  the  sentence  is 
so  long  as  this  one,  which  contains  at  least  two 
hundred  and  thirty-five  words.  Again,  Pater 
speaks  of  "the  living  energy  of  an  intelligence  of 

241 


242  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

the  same  kind  as  though  vaster  in  scope  than  the 
human."  Here  there  is  no  internal  punctuation. 
Accustomed  to  a  ridiculous  excess  of  commas, 
the  reader  may  fall  into  the  "as  though"  trap. 
He  quickly  extricates  himself,  no  doubt;  but  he 
has  not  found  the  sentence  easy  or  "agreeable" 
reading. 

In  Mrs.  Phelps  Ward's  "A  Singular  Life", 
her  publishers  —  and  I  suppose  that,  excepting 
mine,  there  are  none  better  —  have  had  printed 
many  such  expressions  as  "the  clean,  spare 
room";  "the  long,  stone  steps";  "the  cold, 
pecuniary  facts";  "the  old,  illuminated,  swing- 
ing sign";  "the  religious,  old  fisherman";  "big, 
hothouse  bouquets."  This,  which  looks  like 
the  work  of  an  incompetent  type-setter,  makes 
positively  disagreeable  reading;  it  blemishes  a 
book  of  real  merit. 

"If  we  add  to  these,  the  portions  of  her  auto- 
biography devoted  to  us"  forms  part  of  a  sentence 
by  Mr.  John  Graham  Brooks  which  contains 
fourteen  commas.  He  might  have  spared  us 
the  annoyance  of  the  worse  than  useless  "stop" 
after  "these."  The  same  writer  begins  a  sen- 
tence with  "As  one  of  our  haunting  perplexities 
will  be  in  avoiding  local  standards  of  comparison, 


PUNCTUATION  AND  EASE 


243 


as  our  institutions  .  .  .  are  brought  to  the  bar," 
and  by  putting  a  comma  after  "comparison", 
adds  a  momentary  ambiguity  to  the  inelegant  use 
of  "as"  in  two  widely  different  senses. 

A  few  illustrations  of  jerk,  jolt,  and  clutter : 


We  have  come  very  early 
to  understand,  that,  in  many 
instances,  disease  is  social  in 
its  consequences. 

If,  whilst  they  profess 
only  to  please,  they  secretly 
advise,  and  give  instruction, 
they  may  now,  perhaps,  as 
well  as  formerly,  be  esteemed, 
with  justice,  the  best  and 
most  honourable  among 
authors.   (Lord  Shaftesbury.) 

.  .  .  fifteen  years  back, 
in  such  and  such  a  year, 
Wednesday's  dish  had  been, 
by  shameful  oversight,  fur- 
nished him  for  Tuesday's, 
and  he  had  eaten  it  quietly, 
but  refused  his  Port;  which 
pathetic  event  had  caused 
alarm  and  inquiry,  when  the 
error  was  discovered,  and 
apologized  for,  the  old  gentle- 
man merely  saying  "Don't  let 
it  happen  again."  (Mere- 
dith.) 

.  .  .  and  they  might  have 
spoken  to  her  wits,  but  that 


The  first  comma  is  useless, 
the  second  is  needless,  the 
third  is  not  required.  The 
effect  is  harsh. 

Quoted  by  Blair  for  its 
clearness,  and  used  by  A.  S. 
Hill  without  rebuke.  To 
read  it  is  like  riding  over  an 
old-fashioned  corduroy  road 
badly  out  of  repair,  in  a 
springless  cart. 


Which  is  worse,  Meredith 
or  the  noble  lord  ?  Shaftes- 
bury's jolts  come  thicker, 
but  the  triviality  of  what 
Meredith  is  writing  about 
makes  his  ridiculous  formality 
perhaps  more  ridiculous  than 
my  lord's.  Besides,  Mere- 
dith belongs,  chronologically, 
to  our  own  times.  The 
theory  might  be  advanced 
that  the  punctuation  was 
intended  to  be  humorous. 
I  tliink  it  was  not. 

I  think  this  makes  against 
a  possible  theory  that  in  his 


244 


WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 


mortals  cannot,  unaided, 
guess,  or  will  not,  unless 
struck  in  the  face  by  the 
fact,  credit,  what  is  to  their 
minds  the  last  horror. 
(Meredith.) 

It  begets  in  those,  who, 
coming  across  him  in  youth, 
can  bear  him  at  all,  a  habit 
of  reading  between  the  lines, 
.  .  .     (Pater.) 

In  1798  he  visited  Ger- 
many, then,  the  only  half- 
known,  "  promised  land  ",  of 
the  metaphysical,  the  "abso- 
lute", philosophy.     (Pater.) 

I  have  never  heard  that 
psalm  since  without  its  bring- 
ing back  that  summer  night 
in  Deephaven,  the  beautiful 
quaint  old  room,  and  Kate 
and  I  feeling  so  young  and 
worldly,  by  contrast,  the 
nickering,  shaded  light  of  the 
candles,  the  old  book,  and 
the  voices  that  said  Amen. 
(Miss  Jewett.) 


passage  about  old  Tom, 
quoted  above,  Meredith 
meant  to  make  the  punctua- 
tion solemnly  unreasonable ; 
for  here  he  makes  a  serious 
sentence  harsh. 

As  we  have  seen,  Pater  is 
not  consistent.  Omitting  the 
comma  at  the  expense  of 
clearness,  why  insert  it  and 
violate  ease? 

Was  it  an  oversight  that 
prevented  his  working  in  a 
comma  after  the  date?  So, 
he  would  have  neared  the 
limit. 

"There  is  something  well- 
bred  about  her  style,  which  I 
miss  in  so  many  others." 
More's  the  pity  that  this 
sentence,  which  might  have 
been  made  so  good,  is  spoiled 
by  the  weakness  and  clutter 
in  the  middle  of  it.  A  little 
change  would  have  made  a 
great  difference. 


These  two  of  Pater's  sentences  belong  together  : 

1.  Some  English  critics  at  the  beginning  of  the 
present  century  had  a  great  deal  to  say  concerning  a 
distinction,  of  much  importance,  as  they  thought,  in 
the  true  estimate  of  poetry,  between  the  Fancy,  and 
another  more  powerful  faculty  —  the  Imagination. 


PUNCTUATION  AND   EASE  245 

2.  In  his  changes  of  political  sentiment,  Coleridge 
was  associated  with  the  "Lake  School";  and  there  is 
yet  one  other  very  different  sort  of  sentiment  in  which 
he  is  one  with  that  school,  yet  all  himself,  his  sym- 
pathy, namely,  with  the  animal  world. 

1.  Punctuation  should  be  a  help  to  the  reader; 
Pater's  punctuation  is  often  a  hindrance.  Yet  if 
"another"  must  precede  "more  powerful",  a 
comma  between  would  probably  help  matters.  If 
imagination  is  "another  more  powerful  faculty", 
then  fancy,  just  mentioned,  must  be  one  "more 
powerful  faculty"  —  and  that  is  not  at  all  what 
he  means.  The  wording,  however,  is  bad ;  for 
with  the  comma  inserted,  "another"  must  be 
taken  as  an  other,  and  such  analysis  of  the  com- 
pound is  felt  as  an  offense  against  ease.  Putting 
a  in  place  of  "another"  would  relieve  the  situa- 
tion. 

2.  Here  Pater's  fondness  for  the  comma  fails 
him  just  where  a  comma  is  needed.  According 
to  the  sentence  as  punctuated,  "political  senti- 
ment" is  one  "very  different  sort  of  sentiment", 
and  "sympathy  .  .  .  with  the  animal  world"  is 
another.  A  dash  would  have  been  proper  after 
"himself",  as  it  is  after  "faculty"  in  the  first 
quotation,  and  would  have  made  easier  reading. 


246  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

I  doubt  if  this  stylist  cared  to  make-  easy  reading, 
even  where  he  could  have  done  so  without  any 
sacrifice  except  of  time  and  strength. 

I  fear  the  Oxford  don,  in  general,  is  no  demo- 
crat. In  his  "still  air  of  delightful  studies"  there 
is  probably  too  much  of  "Odi  profanum  vulgus  et 
arceo"  And  even  where  the  student  is  passion- 
ately democratic  in  theory,  he  may  as  author 
scorn  to  avoid  that  which  is  "caviar  to  the  gen- 
eral." Now  it  is  both  ill-judged  and  ill-mannered 
to  "talk  down"  to  one's  audience;  but  on  the 
other  hand  it  is  reasonable  and  courteous  so  to 
frame  one's  discourse  that  he  who  reads  shall 
not  be  needlessly  distracted,  annoyed,  confused, 
or  baffled.  The  subject-matter  may  in  itself 
present  difficulties  which  cannot  be  escaped  with- 
out shirking,  or  overcome  without  intense  appli- 
cation ;  the  treatment  of  it  should  scrupulously 
avoid  adding  to  such  difficulties,  or  putting  any 
reader  at  a  disadvantage  who  has  the  requisite 
brains  and  the  will  to  use  them.  In  that  fine 
spirit  of  kindness  which  is  at  the  root  of  all  genuine 
courtesy  let  the  writer  thus  put  himself  in  the 
reader's  place,  and  he  will  do  himself  good. 
Setting  himself  to  talk  straight,  he  will  find  it 
necessary  to  think  straight.     Criticising  his  own 


PUNCTUATION  AND  EASE  247 

work  according  to  an  exacting  and  generous  stand- 
ard, he  will  find  it  taking  form  and  finish  under 
his  hand.  Enlarging  his  audience  by  clarifying 
his  style,  he  will  commend  his  work  all  the  more 
to  the  elect  ones  of  the  inner  circle.  By  his 
democracy  he  will  do  somewhat  towards  bringing 
about  that  aristocracy  we  all  wish  for  —  the 
ascendency  of  the  best. 

Courtesy  as  a  duty  of  the  writer  to  the  reader 
is  not  a  hackneyed  theme;  surely  some  mention 
of  it  is  not  out  of  place  when  we  are  discussing 
Ease,  which  might  be  defined  as  the  good  manners 
of  style.  Men  and  women  there  be  who,  not 
lacking  in  efficiency,  have  that  delightful  combina- 
tion of  qualities  to  which  we  give  the  name  of 
Charm ;  and  this  genius  for  agreeableness  raises 
their  other  excellencies  to  the  nth  power.  Ease 
in  discourse  and  Charm  in  the  intercourse  of 
life  have  much  in  common. 


XXXI 

EUPHONY 

*, _,  — 

Mr.  Cooper  quotes  Zola  as  saying  of  Flau- 
bert: "He  weighed  every  word,  examining  not 
only  the  meaning  but  the  conformation  as  well . 
Avoidance  of  repetitions,  of  rhymes,  olMharsh 
sounds  was  merely  the  rough  beginning  of  his 
task . lie  went  so  Tar  as  not  to  allow  the  same 
syflablesto  recur  in  a  phrase  ..."  Doubtless 
Flaubert  carried  too  far  hispainful  toil  for  the 
utmost  Tinish.  Those  who  are  writing  English 
in  these  days  are  certainly  in  no  danger  of  oyer- 
doingthp  Iqfipr  limn* — It  is  very  true  that  most 
readers  are  not  critical  in  this  regard;  it  does 
not  follow  that  good  work  would  be  wasted 
upon  them.  As  the  mere  negative  fault  of  not 
cultivating  refined  manners  may  keep.a  worthy 
and  ab'le  personfrom  social  recognition,  so  ignor- 
ing the  nicer  requirements  of  good  style  may 
put  a  *TVTilei  at  serious  disadvantage ;    and  even 

248 


EUPHONY  249 

with  those  who  are  quite  incapable  of  judging 

his  workmanship. 

_ , » 

I  do  not  like  you,  Doctor  Fell ; 
The  reason  why  I  cannot  tell. 

When  Professor  Lounsbury  writes  that  some- 
thing or  other  "serves  as  a  satisfactory  substi- 
tute ",  he  gains  nothing  by  the  alliteration  and 
loses  much  by  the  hissing.  This  fault  of  using 
too  many  sibilants  (s,  z,  sh,  zh,  ch  =  tsk,  j)  is 
more  common,  I  suspect,  than  the  effort  to  avoid 
it.  It  is  a  pleasure  to  quote  Mr.  Aldrich  in  this 
connection.     The  italics  are  his. 

"And  she  shuddered  as  she  sat,  still  silent,  on  her 
seat,  and  he  saw  that  she  shuddered."  This  is  from 
Anthony  Trollope's  novel,  "Can  You  Forgive  Her?" 
Can  you  forgive  him  ?  is  the  next  question. 

Some  further  illustrations  of  sibilation,  in 
which  I  have  italicized  the  sibilants : 


As  he  comes  to  this 
country,  one  of  his  first  im- 
pressions of  the  Americans  is 
that  "they  are  extremely 
open  to  compassion",  as 
shown, among  other  examples, 
in  their  administration  of 
justice.     (Brooks.) 


I  was  about  to  say  that 
the  sibilation  speaks  for 
itself.  So  indeed  does  mine. 
Let  us  ask,  in  passing,  icliat 
is  "shown."  Is  it  "compas- 
sion ",  or  the  fact  that  "they 
are  extremely  open  to  com- 
passion"? 


250 


WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 


He  wanted  to  once  more 
look  upon  the  scene  of  the 
sufferings  of  his  companions 
in  arms. 

The  Sixth's  loss  was 
greater  than  that  of  any 
regiment  except  the  Sixteenth. 

He  has  been  the  subject 
of  the  always  alert  suspicions 
of  government  officials  and 
of  strange  peoples  jealous  of 
intrusions  into  their  land. 

Such  a  doctrine  is  essen- 
tially superficial,  and  such  will 
be  its  effects.     (Newman.) 

And  any  one  book  which 
tries  to  do  even  as  much  as 
this  must  practice  severe 
self-restraint  in  its  choice  of 
material. 

Therefore  we  fulfil  the 
law  of  our  being  so  far  as 
our  being  is  aesthetic  and 
intellective,  as  well  as  so  far 
as  it  is  moral.     (Arnold.) 


The  split  infinitive,  per- 
fectly easy  to  avoid,  is  per- 
haps a  worse  fault  than  the 
sibilation. 

"Sixth's"  is  more  needless 
than  unpronounceable.  The 
omission  of  other  is  illogical. 

One  may  do  what  he  will 
with  his  own.  The  author 
should  have  found  it  easy  to 
eliminate  a  few  of  his  seven- 
teen sibilants. 

The  two  uses  of  such  are 
not  well  related,  and  the 
second  is  not  quite  clear. 

The  writer  may  not  have 
noticed  the  surd  s-sound, 
unvaried,  occurring  seven 
times  in  "this  .  .  .  its." 
He  may  not  have  disliked  it. 

This  bad  sentence  is 
quoted  without  rebuke  by  the 
Standard  Dictionary  (under 
Faulty  Diction),1  to  illustrate 
a  proper  use  of  so. 


In  the  phrases  as  well  as,  so  far  as,  and  the  like, 
the  final  as  is  in  its  function  clearly  a  relative. 
In  its  various  relative  uses  it  has  the  antecedents 
same,  such,  so,  and  as.  Notice  that  the  first 
three  have   dental   initials,   characteristic  of  the 


1909. 


EUPHONY  251 

demonstrative  words  so  much  used  as  antecedents ; 
compare  this,  that,  the,  and  tarn,  talis,  tot,  too-ovtos, 
etc.  There  is  grammatical  analogy,  then,  as 
well  as  euphony,  in  favor  of  beginning  these 
phrases  with  so  rather  than  as,  wherever  the  sense 
admits  of  so  doing. 

Perhaps  every  one  will  admit  that  after  a 
negative,  so  is  a  better  antecedent  than  as  if 
there  is  even  a  little  demonstrative  emphasis  to 
be  conveyed.  Also  it  may  be  assumed  that  in 
Arnold's  sentence,  given  above,  so  is  rightly 
used  "if  the  extent  or  degree  ...  is  to  be  em- 
phasized at  all  (however  slightly)";  and  to  one 
or  two  other  phrases  similar  to  his  the  same  prin- 
ciple applies.  I  will  give,  without  comment,  a 
number  of  quotations  in  which  I  think  a  change 
of  "as"  to  so  would  be  an  improvement. 

But  things  are  by  no  means  as  bad  as  they  recently 
have  been.  (President  Hadley.) 

If  the  old  gospel  of  individualism  should  hereafter 
change  into  the  gospel  of  socialism,  the  change  would 
not  be  half  as  great  as  that  involved  in  the  surrender 
of  the  ascetic  ideal  of  the  Christian  life. 

(Rauschenbusch.) 

The  fringes  of  the  cities  are  not  nearly  as  bad  as 
they  were  thirty  or  forty  years  ago.       (Van  Dyke.) 


252  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

The  word  Compromise,  as  far  as  Slavery  is  con- 
cerned, has  always  been  of  fatal  augury.       (Lowell.) 

As  far  as  concerned  Canada  his  mind  was  purely 
historical.  .  .  (Howells.) 

As  far  as  I  knew,  there  was  no  reason  why  she 
should  not  love  her  cousin  Paul,  if  she  admired  him 
half  as  much  as  her  brother  was  inclined  to  do. 

(Crawford.) 

.  .  .  mostly  as  well  let  alone  as  far  as  description 
goes.  (Muir.) 

As  long  as  men  are  interesting  to  one  another,  as 
long  as  the  infinite  complexities  of  modern  emotion 
play  about  situations  that  are  as  old  as  the  race,  so 
long  will  there  be  an  opportunity  for  the  free  develop- 
ment of  the  short  story  as  a  literary  form.     (Perry.) 

"This  constant  suggestion  of  an  absolute  dual- 
ity between  higher  and  lower  moods,  and  the  work 
done  in  them,"  says  Walter  Pater,  "...  makes 
the  reading  of  Wordsworth  an  excellent  sort  of 
training  towards  the  things  of  art  and  poetry." 
This  sentence  begins  with  a  harsh  combination 
of  sibilants  (six  in  the  first  three  words),  dentals, 
and  gutturals.  Doubtless  "work"  is  governed 
by  "between"  —  a  preposition  which  both  by  deri- 
vation and  by  meaning  calls  for  a  plural.  The 
incongruity  might  have  been  avoided  by  a  little 
more     "work."     The     seventeen     words     from 


EUPHONY  253 


a 


makes"  to  "poetry"  inclusive  will  bear  study. 
Observe  the  steady  trochaic-dactylic  movement 
with  ten  stresses,  and  the  nineteen  dental  sounds, 
of  which  six  are  sibilant  (I  count  only  one  sibilant 
in  "excellent").  Somebody  will  be  counting 
dentals  in  this  last  sentence  of  mine !  But  my 
numerical  statement,  bad  as  it  may  be,  is  at  least 
broken  up  into  four  parts,  and  does  not  hammer 
away  like  a  metronome.  In  Pater's  sentence 
one  peculiarity  seems  literally  to  accentuate  the 
other. 

Andrew  Lang  says  that  something  "had  orig- 
inally a  religious  sense."  This,  I  suppose, 
would  be  simply  intolerable  to  an  artist  like 
Flaubert.  I  have  forgotten  who  wrote,  "Those 
which  would  still  grow  he  washed  tenderly  night 
and  morning  with  his  watering-pot."  The  use 
of  "which",  where  that  would  have  served  per- 
fectly well,  makes  a  harsh  sequence;  and  com- 
binations like  "washed  tenderly",  which  cannot 
be  easily  pronounced,  might  as  well  be  avoided. 
Speaking  of  which  —  Lowell  is  hardly  at  his 
best  in  this : 

...  by  an  appeal  to  that  authority  which  is  of 
divine  right,  inasmuch  as  its  office  is  to  maintain  that 
order  which  is  the  single  attribute  of  the  Infinite  Reason 


254  WORKMANSHIP  IN   WORDS 

that  we  can  clearly  apprehend  and  of  which  we  have 
hourly  example. 

From  Mrs.  Phelps  Ward : 

He  was  learning  not  to  mind  his  straw  mattress  as 
much  as  he  did  at  first. 

The  harshness  of  "his  straw  mattress  as  much 
as"  is  evident  enough.  We  have  seen  that  in 
such  a  case  so  is  the  right  word  to  be  correlated 
with  the  following  "as";  and  the  correct  and 
masculine  form  of  expression  would  be  also 
comparatively  euphonious.  A  little  break  in  a 
harsh  "sound-sequence"  makes  a  great  differ- 
ence. 

I  have  here  merely  touched  upon  the  subject 
of  euphony,  on  which  a  volume  would  have  to 
be  written  to  do  it  justice.  Some  qualified 
specialist  might  well  do  for  prose,  along  this  and 
related  lines,  a  work  comparable  with  that  of 
Sidney  Lanier  in  his  "Science  of  English  Verse." 
While  no  amount  of  science  can  take  the  place 
of  "studium  et  aures"  —  "taste  and  an  apprecia- 
tive  ear  ",  on  the  other  hand  that  aesthetic  liter- 
ary  criticism  which  merely  sets  down  personal 
impressions,  without  definite  exposition  on__which 
minds  can  meet,  is  of  comparatively  little  use, 


EUPHONY  255 

I  believe,  to  most  readers  and  writers.  There 
needs  to  be  investigation  of  facts,  formulation 
of  principles,  simple  but  accurate  terminology. 
The  ground  needs  to  be  cleared  and  mapped  out 
for  students;  and  every  writer  and  every  reader 
ought  to  be  a  student. 


XXXII 

THE  AWKWARD  SQUAD  (I) 

Life  is,  among  other  things,  a  very  interesting 
opportunity  to  acquire  inward  and  spiritual 
grace  by  sincerely  cultivating  its  outward  and 
visible  signs.  The  graces  belong  to  the  fitness 
of  things,  and  normally  spring  out  of  good  will. 
One  cannot  lift  himself  in  a  basket,  nor  win  grace 
by  saying  Go  to,  now,  let  us  be  graceful;  but 
we  can  try  to  do  well  whatever  we  have  to  do ; 
and  we  can  consider  the  other  fellow.  Ease  is 
the  sum  of  certain  well-bred  qualities  in  discourse ; 
and  a  few  gentle  hints  concerning  what  is  and 
what  is  not  suited  to  the  peculiar  social  inter- 
course of  reader  and  writer  may  do  no  harm. 

A  statement  may  be  so  unworkmanlike  as  to 
be  rude  and  plebeian ;  therefore  I  quote  here 
from  James  Russell  Lowell  a  sentence  or  two 
which  might  properly  appear  in  a  very  different 
connection : 

256 


THE   AWKWARD  SQUAD   (I)  257 

Strike  and  string :  from  the  game  of  nine-pins ;  to 
make  a  strike  is  to  knock  down  all  the  pins  with  one 
ball,  hence  it  has  come  to  mean  fortunate,  successful. 

To  the  halves  still  survives  among  us,  though  ap- 
parently obsolete  in  England.  It  means  either  to  let 
or  to  hire  a  piece  of  land,  receiving  half  the  profit  in 
money  or  in  kind  (partibus  locare). 

Of  course,  "to  make  a  strike"  could  not  "come 
to  mean  fortunate  ",  or  come  to  have  any  other 
adjective  sense.  And  of  course  "to  the  halves", 
an  adverbial  phrase,  could  never  mean  "to  let  or 
to  hire",  or  to  do  anything  else  whatsoever. 
From  long  and  intimate  familiarity  with  Yankee 
speech,  I  should  say  that  et  the  halves  or  't  the 
halves  is  what  Lowell's  own  Hosea  Biglow  would 
have  said,  and  "to  the  halves",  only  an  excep- 
tional illiterate  variant.  To  speak  of  hiring  a 
piece  of  land  and  "receiving"  half  sounds  a  bit 
odd,  to  say  the  least.  The  man  that  "takes" 
land  at  the  halves  —  I  think  I  never  once  heard 
of  hiring  it  in  this  way  —  gives  half  the  product 
for  the  use  of  the  land,  and  retains  rather  than 
receives  the  other  half,  which  was  never  in  the 
land-owner's  possession.  I  say  "product";  for 
the  "profit"  of  the  man  who  works  the  land  is 
what  is  left  of  his  half  of  the  product  after  deduct- 


258  WORKMANSHIP  IN   WORDS 

ing  expenses,  and  the  profit  of  the  owner  is  his 
half  less  expense,  if  any.  Partibus  locare  does  not 
mean  to  "hire  ",  in  the  sense  in  which  Lowell  uses 
the  word,  but  to  put  out,  so  to  speak,  on  shares. 

We  are  all  proud  of  Lowell,  though  we  may 
discriminate.  He  knew  well  how  to  hold  our 
own,  if  I  may  so  speak,  against  the  supercilious- 
ness of  our  insular  cousins.  If  he  was  not  impec- 
cable in  his  English,  neither  are  they.  Newman 
writes,  "...  here  I  do  but  say  that  there  are 
two  ways  of  using  knowledge,  and  in  matter  of 
fact  [sic]  those  who  use  it  in  one  way  are  not 
likely  to  use  it  in  the  other,  or  at  least  in  a  very 
limited  measure."  Mr.  Hardy  has  "her  habitual 
indifference  alone  to  dress",  where  I  suppose 
only,  in  its  proper  place,  would  have  expressed  his 
meaning.  Matthew  Arnold  is  always  interesting, 
not  to  say  charming,  but  he  is  not  always  elegant : 

.  .  .  culture,  which  ...  is  no  longer  debarred,  by 
a  rigid  invincible  exclusion  of  whatever  is  new,  from 
getting  acceptance  for  its  ideas,  simply  because  they 
are  new. 

And  one  would  think,  that  property,  assigned  for 
the  purpose  of  providing  for  a  people's  religious  wor- 
ship when  that  worship  was  one,  the  State  should, 
when  that  worship  is  split  into  several  forms,  apportion 
between  those  several  forms. 


THE  AWKWARD   SQUAD   (I)  259 

Was  there  ever  yet  an  author  who  did  not  need 
to  be  reminded  that  when  a  sentence  proves 
ugly  and  intractable,  the  better  part  of  valor 
is  in  pitching  it  overboard !  It  is  not  always 
wasteful  to  throw  words  away  —  "there  are 
plenty  more  where  they  came  from."  Cicero 
could  wear  his  periodic  style  like  an  easy  gar- 
ment ;  but  Arnold,  staggering  under  a  burden  of 
Latinized  English  that  does  not  fit  him,  is  like 
David  in  Saul's  armor. 

Returning  to  the  "homeland"  : 

.  .  .  who  died  so  prematurely  at  Walmer  castle 
after  her  return  from  India,  a  victim  of  the  latter's 
climate.  (American  Newspaper.) 

Is  it  likely  that  the  science  of  our  day  will  escape 
the  common  doom ;  that  the  minds  of  its  votaries  will 
never  look  old-fashioned  to  the  grandchildren  of  the 
latter  ?  (James.) 

High  philosophy  and  journalism  meet  on 
common  ground  of  infelicity.  How  often  do  you 
hear  "the  latter"  in  conversation?  All  we  that 
write  could  learn  much,  I  suspect,  by  "takin* 
notes"  of  every-day  talk.  If  we  must  use  formali- 
ties, let  us  be  careful  how  we  use  them. 

Into  the  debate  about  his  existence,  I  will  not  pre- 
tend to  enter.     I  must  take  up  humbler  ground,  and 


260  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

limit  my  ambition  to  showing  that  a  God,  whether 
existent  or  not,  is  at  all  events  the  kind  of  being  which, 
if  he  did  exist,  would  form  the  most  adequate  possible 
object  for  minds  framed  like  our  own  to  conceive  as 
lying  at  the  root  of  the  universe.  (James.) 

The  meaning,  probably,  is  something  like  this : 
"I  must  .  .  .  limit  my  ambition  to  showing 
that  a  God  is  the  most  adequate  possible  object  for 
minds  like  ours  to  conceive  as  lying  at  the  root 
of  the  universe."  With  all  modesty  be  it  sug- 
gested that  there  was  no  need  of  putting  in  the 
present  condition  contrary  to  fact  "if  he  did 
exist ",  which  in  the  plain  way  of  speech  implies 
non-existence,  and  so  is  rather  harshly  out  of 
harmony  with  "whether  existent  or  not."  No 
need  of  making  the  reader  think  of  taking 
"up"  the  ground;  no  need  of  bringing  in  the 
grotesque  conception  of  a  deity  "lying  at  the 
root  of  the  universe."  In  dealing  with  the  pro- 
foundest  and  most  difficult  questions  that  can 
engage  the  human  mind,  it  is  not  easy  to 
make  easy  reading ;  but  the  language  ought 
surely  to  be  as  straightforward  and  lucid,  in 
every  sense  as  easy  to  read,  as  the  wit  of  man 
can  make  it. 

Now   a  few  pieces   of   Professor    Lounsbury's 


THE  AWKWARD   SQUAD    (I)  261 

English,  which  is  always  interesting,  and  some- 
times instructive. 

Had  during  those  centuries  the  form  been  generally 
adopted  by  writers  of  the  highest  grade  .  .  . 

Not  quite  English,  really.  It  is  bookish,  and 
harsh.  Why  not  use  an  if,  as  no  doubt  the  pro- 
fessor would  have  done  in  conversation? 

In  the  line  previously  cited  from  Byron,  "to  vainly 
bleed"  will  seem  to  most  men  a  more  emphatic  way  of 
stating  the  fact  than  it  would  be  by  using  "vainly  to 
bleed"  or  "to  bleed  vainly." 

I  suppose  he  means  that  "to  vainly  bleed" 
will  seem  to  most  men  more  emphatic  than  "vainly 
to  bleed"  or  "to  bleed  vainly."  His  "it"  prob- 
ably refers  to  "to  vainly  bleed  ",  but  it  cannot  so 
refer  without  inexcusable  awkwardness.  Again, 
"to  vainly  bleed"  is  not  a  "way  of  stating  the 
fact"  ;  it  states  nothing,  emphatically  or  otherwise. 

One  point  indeed  there  is  which  the  average  man  of 
education,  or  rather  the  man  of  average  education, 
seems  wholly  incapable  of  comprehending.  He  can- 
not be  made  to  see  that  it  is  the  meaning  which  living 
men  put  into  the  words  they  use  that  is  alone  of  any 
significance ;  that  of  very  trifling  significance  is  the 
meaning  that  dead  men  have  given  to  those  from  which 
the  former  have  come. 


262  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

This  "man  of   average   education"    is   rather 
hard   to   place.     He   must   be,    educationally,    a 
good  many  degrees  below  the  average  educated 
man,  for  the  illiterates,  the  uneducated,  and  the 
half -educated  make  a  great  showing  in  the  aver- 
age.    While    the    professor   on    sober    considera- 
tion "lets  out"  the  "average  man  of  education", 
I  think  he  need  not.     Educated  men  can  hardly 
be   thought   capable   of   seeing   the   truth   of  his 
main  proposition  (ending  with  "is  alone  of  any 
significance"),  or  of  the  second;   which,  however, 
is  obviously  inconsistent  with  the  first.     At  least, 
if  a  man  of  education  has  in  dealing  with  words 
constantly    found    profit    in    considering    their 
derivation,   he   will   be   slow  to   admit   that  the 
meaning  of  those  from  which  they  have  come  is 
"of  very  trifling  significance."     It  is  interesting 
to  see  how  this  phrase  "of  very  trifling  signifi- 
cance" is  by  inversion   (and,  I  think,  at  some 
sacrifice  of  ease)  brought  into  close  neighborhood 
with  the  words  it  contradicts.     I  cannot  get  rid 
of  the  impression  of  stiffness  from  that  use  of 
"former"  —  so  unlike  the  easy  -usage  of  good 
conversation. 


XXXIII 

THE  AWKWARD  SQUAD   (II) 

I  group  at  the  beginning  of  this  chapter  a 
number  of  repetitions,  of  one  kind  or  another, 
which  seem  to  offend  against  ease.  The  italics 
are  mine,  and  will  perhaps  suffice  without  par- 
ticular criticisms. 

It  was  rather  that  I  bought  that  I  had  carried  a 
burden  long  enough  .  .  .  (Benson.) 

.  .  .  our  modern  Press  would  rather  appeal  to  phys- 
ical arrogance,  or  to  anything,  rather  than  appeal  to 
right  and  wrong.  (Chesterton.) 

And  there  are  few  of  the  members  of  the  Academy 
who  do  not  individually  use  unhesitatingly  a  host  of 
words  which  they  collectively  have  not  yet  sanctioned. 

(Matthews.) 

They  will  never  hesitate  to  resort  to  the  meanest  of 
personalities  and  to  the  imputing  of  the  lowest  of  motives. 

(Matthews.) 

And  this  recalls  the  comment  of  another  English- 
man on  another  witticism  made  by  an  American,  al- 
though not  characteristically  American.     (Matthews.) 

263 


264  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

It  is  worth  our  while  to  note  the  evidence  as  to 
the  states  of  climate  in  the  former  geological  periods  in 
this  continent  which  may  be  derived  from  the  salt 
deposits  which  may  be  found  at  various  points  within 
its  area.  (Shaler.) 

It  is  needless  to  follow  the  /ortune  of  the  /ight  which 
follows.  (Stephen.) 

The  progress  of  mankind  has  still  been  moving 
onward.  (J.  H.  Holmes.) 

Whence  such  needs  come  from  we  do  not  know. 

(James.) 

In  this  country  one  great  difficulty  in  dealing  with 
the  matter  lies  in  the  fact  that  there  are,  not  one,  but 
many,  reading  publics  which  are  mutually  exclusive  of 
one  another.  (Mabie.) 

On  the  following  repetitions  I  must  take  space 
for  comment,  still  using  italics. 

It    is    strange    what    an  The    "effect"    of    faults 

aggravating  effect  this  state  small  and  great  is  here  cumu- 

of  affairs  has  upon  a  pedes-  lative.     By  writing  how  much 

trian    who    is     bent     upon  this  state  of  affairs  exasper- 

riding.     (Van  Dyke.)  ates,  one  might  do  better. 

.    .    .    subordinates  made  The  "had  better  have"  is 

some  arrests  which  had  better  in  a  way  idiomatic,   but  is 

have      been      left      unmade,  not  a  happy  combination. 
(Morse.) 

At   that   moment,    before  Needless     to     say,     "it" 

one    could    have    lifted    the      doesn't  refer  to  the  eyelash ! 
eyelash  to  see  how  it  fell,  a      With  the  context  before  me, 


THE   AWKWARD  SQUAD   (II) 


265 


well-aimed  blow  struck  the 
brute  beneath  the  ear.  He 
fell.     (Mrs.  Phelps  Ward.) 

Everybody  had  a  smile 
for  the  preacher's  bride,  — 
the  boarder  on  the  rocks,  the 
fisherman  from  the  docks. 
(Mrs.  Phelps  Ward.) 

The  essential  point  is  this, 
that  we  should  recognise  that 
to  study  history  is  to  study 
not  merely  a  narrative,  but 
at  the  same  time  [author's 
italics]  certain  theoretical 
studies.     (Prof.  J.  R.  Seeley.) 

The  discourse  was  cut 
short  by  the  sudden  appear- 
ance of  Charley  on  the  stage, 
with  a  face  and  hands  of 
hideous  blackness,  and  a  nose 
like  a  guttering  candle. 
Why,  on  that  particularly- 
cleanly  afternoon,  he  should 
have  discovered  that  the 
chimney-crook  and  chain 
from  which  the  hams  were 
suspended  should  have  pos- 
sessed more  merits  and  gen- 
eral interest  than  any  other 
articles  in  the  house,  is  a 
question  for  nursing  mothers 
to  decide.     (Hardy.) 


I  did  not  find  any  humorous 
intention  in  "He  fell."  I 
suspect  Mrs.  Ward  did  not 
"take  notice." 

Was  the  rhyme  intended  ? 
On  any  theory,  or  none,  I  am 
compelled  to  think  the  sen- 
tence is  badly  lacking  in  ease. 

So  then,  to  study  is  to 
study  studies.  The  greater 
the  distinction  of  an  author, 
and  the  wider  his  influence, 
the  more  fitting  and  needful 
it  is  that  he  should  heed 
what  he  says. 

I  don't  find  the  first  sen- 
tence perfect  ("Charley  on 
the  stage"),  but  it  is  a  very 
effective  bit  of  description. 
The  second,  multitudinously 
worded,  and  blemished  by 
awkward  repetition,  makes 
an  anticlimax.  It  is  what 
some  would  call  "slipshod" 
work.  And,  by  the  way  — 
if  in  your  reading  you  meet 
ten  times  with  the  verb 
possess,  I  estimate  that  at 
least  nine  times  out  of  ten  it 
will  have  been  ill  chosen. 


Leaving  the  topic  of  repetitions,  we  will  con- 
sider other  forms  of  awkwardness. 


266  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

I  had  been  one  Sunday  night  down-town,  supping 
and  talking  with  Mr.  Abraham  Cahan  about  the 
"East  Side"  .  .  .  (Wells.) 

Doubtless  "with  Mr.  A.  C."  modifies  both 
participles.  If  so,  the  next  prepositional  phrase 
should  do  the  same;  but  it  cannot.  Why  not 
put  "with  Mr.  A.  C."  after  "supping"? 

The  places  that  were  possible  for  work  in  the  coun- 
try were  few  for  steady  employment. 

(Rev.  Charles  M.  Sheldon.) 

A  misused  adjective  and  a  bad  arrangement. 
The  places  that  were  available  for  steady  employ- 
ment in  the  country  were  jew  would  seem  to  be 
much  better. 

It  unlocks  emotion,  and  pours  it  in  free  and  eloquent 
forms  in  an  imaginary  world.  (Woodberry.) 

The  conception  of  pouring  emotion  (nowhither) 
seems  crude. 

"It  is  said  of  the  holy  Sturme,"  says  an  Oxford 
writer,  "that,  in  passing  a  horde  of  unconverted  Ger- 
mans, as  they  were  bathing  and  gambolling  in  the 
stream,  he  was  so  overpowered  by  the  intolerable  scent 
which  arose  from  them  that  he  nearly  fainted  away." 
National  Literature  is,  in  a  parallel  way,  the  untutored 
movement  of  the  reason,  imagination,  passions,  and 
affections  of  the  natural  man,  the  leapings  and  the 


THE  AWKWARD  SQUAD   (II)  267 

friskings,  the  plungings  and  the  snortings,  the  sport- 
ings  and  the  buffoonings,  the  clumsy  play  and  the  aim- 
less toil,  of  the  noble,  lawless  savage  of  God's  intel- 
lectual creation.  (Newman.) 

Recalling  Professor  Hill's  definition  of  Ease, 
we  may  remark  that  the  passage  quoted  is  far 
from  being  an  "agreeable"  story,  and  the  use 
made  of  it  is  in  questionable  taste. 

It  was  once  also  so  of  the  legal  profession,  but  it 
was  debauched  and  prostituted  by  a  few  men  to  com- 
mercialism. (Hall.) 

The  "also  so"  needs  no  comment ;  two  kinds  of 
"it",  and  uncertainty  about  the  syntax  of  "to", 
help  to  make  the  sentence  harder  to  read  than  it 
was  to  write. 

1.  The  question  had  arisen  as  to  what  reply  he 
should  make  .  .  .  (Gilder.) 

2.  .  .  .  told  him  about  just  having  lost  several 
thousand  dollars  .  .  .  (Gilder.) 

3.  At  Woodley,  his  then  out-of-town  home. 

(Gilder.) 

4.  I  found  him  at  last  sitting  on  a  rough  chair 
under  a  shelf  in  the  baggage-car,  he  having  given  up 
his  seat  to  a  woman.  (Gilder.) 

1.  A  "question  as  to"  etc.  is  English.  "The" 
question   seems   to   have   been    "what  reply   he 


268  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

should  make"  —  not  some  query  with  reference 
to  ("as  to")  what  reply  he  should  make. 

2.  It  doesn't  seem  to  ring  true.  If  the  com- 
bination just  lost  was  to  be  avoided,  surely  there 
was  more  than  one  way  in  which  a  skilled  writer 
could  avoid  it. 

3.  Hardly  English.     Why  not  then  his  f 

4.  The  "he  having"  is  another  piece  of  report- 
ers' English  (compare  "1."),  quite  in  the  style 
of  a  local  paper  in  the  back  country.  If  the  writer 
used  the  pronoun  because  he  was  scrupulous  to 
avoid  even  a  slight  formal  ambiguity,  it  was  a 
simple  matter  to  begin  a  new  sentence  with  He 
had. 

The  nest-of-boxes  style  is  interesting  but  not 
easy.  An  author  whose  name  has  escaped  me 
writes : 

.  .  .  the  answer  is  .  .  .  that  that  which  is  to  exert 
the  most  profound  and  far-reaching  influence  upon  the 
future  of  mankind  is  that  the  better  self  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church  is  beginning  to  realize  that  it  is  through 
its  sin  that  the  social  order  still  ignores  divine  sonship 
and  human  brotherhood. 

"Laborious  orient  ivory,  sphere  in  sphere." 

The    proposition    whose    subject    is   "answer" 
includes    all.     The    outmost    of    the    remaining 


THE  AWKWARD  SQUAD   (II)  269 

spheres  is  the  clause  introduced  by  the  first 
"that."  Within  this,  and  next  in  magnitude, 
we  have  the  clause  beginning  with  the  third 
"that."  Still  within  and  still  smaller  is  the  clause 
that  follows  "realize."  Last  of  all  and  at  the 
center,  "that  the  social  order  still  ignores  divine 
sonship  and  human  brotherhood."  Logically  the 
first-named  clause  contains  all  the  rest,  and  so  on 
down. 

"He  shall  not  take  advantage  of  my  father's  weak- 
ness again,"  he  said,  "nor  shall  he  use  to  further  his 
purposes  what  I  have  done  to  reduce  him  to  this 
want."  (Allen.) 

The  big,  crude  blue-grass  boy  who  is  the  hero 
of  "  The  Reign  of  Law  "  was  both  too  much  of  a 
boy  and  too  much  of  a  man  to  talk  to  himself 
like  a  poor  little  prig.  If  he  had  been  capable 
of  talking  book  in  such  a  wretched  way,  he  would 
hardly  have  deserved  the  love  of  Gabriella. 
Doubtless  some  features  of  Mr.  Allen's  book 
are  due  to  his  deliberate  election  to  write  prose 
poetrj?" ;  but  where  is  the  poetry  in  that  un- 
natural speech ! 

It  [competitive  commerce]  makes  men  who  are  the 
gentlest  and  kindest  friends  and  neighbors,  relentless 
taskmasters  in  their  shops  and  stores,  who  will  drain 


270  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

the  strength  of  their  men  and  pay  their  female  em- 
ployees wages  on  which  no  girl  can  live  without  sup- 
plementing them  in  some  way.        (Rauschenbusch.) 

The  comma  after  "neighbors"  is  not  "agree- 
able." There  are  too  many  pairs  in  the  sentence. 
The  relative  clauses  lack  variety.  The  sentence 
ends  weakly.  I  venture  to  suggest :  Of  men 
whose  social  relations  are  most  gentle  and  kindly 
it  makes  relentless  taskmasters  in  business,  who  will 
drain  the  strength  of  their  men  and  pay  their  female 
help  wages  on  which  no  girl  can  live. 

Speaking  of  pairs  —  here  are  two  fragments 
from  Swinburne's  "  The  Age  of  Shakespeare  "  : 

...  an  obscure  body  of  feather-headed  fanatics, 
concerning  whom  we  can  only  be  certain  that  they 
were  decent  and  inoffensive  in  comparison  with  the 
yelling  Yahoos  whom  the  scandalous  and  senseless 
license  of  our  day  allows  to  run  and  roar  about  the 
country  unmuzzled  and  unwhipped. 

.  .  .  slipshod  and  straggling  metre,  incongruous 
touches  or  flashes  of  fanciful  or  lyrical  expression, 
reckless  and  awkward  inversions,  irrational  and  irre- 
pressible outbreaks  of  irregular  and  fitful  rhyme. 

Elsewhere  in  the  book  I  find  one  sentence  con- 
taining fourteen  such  pairs.  This  chapter  shall 
close  with  another  of  Swinburne's  sentences, 
containing  105  words  and  broken  by  one  solitary 


THE  AWKWARD  SQUAD   (II)  271 

mark  of  punctuation.  Beginning  with  the  prin- 
cipal clause  (at  "least  of  all"),  I  find  the  sentence 
breaking  up  into  a  series  of  perhaps  ten  cadences 
which  march  monotonously  to  the  end, 

Like  as  the  waves  make  towards  the  pebbled  shore. 

And  this  is  the  beginning  of  the  essay  on  Thomas 
Hey  wood.  I  am  reminded  of  another  opening 
sentence,  judiciously  brief  and  impressive:  "In 
the  universe  of  God  there  are  no  accidents." 
So  begins  Charles  Sumner's  eulogy  on  Lincoln. 

If  it  is  difficult  to  write  at  all  on  any  subject  once 
ennobled  by  the  notice  of  Charles  Lamb  without  some 
apprehensive  sense  of  intrusion  and  presumption, 
least  of  all  may  we  venture  without  fear  of  trespass 
upon  ground  so  consecrated  by  his  peculiar  devotion 
as  the  spacious  if  homely  province  or  demesne  of  the 
dramatist  whose  highest  honor  it  is  to  have  earned 
from  the  finest  of  all  critics  the  crowning  tribute  of  a 
sympathy  which  would  have  induced  him  to  advise  an 
intending  editor  or  publisher  of  the  dramatists  of  the 
Shakespearean  age  to  begin  by  a  reissue  of  the  works 
of  Heywood. 


XXXIV 

FORMALITY  AND  GOOD  FORM 

I  have  said  much  in  favor  of  good  form ;  if 
I  speak  against  formality,  my  words  should  have 
the  more  weight  as  coming  from  one  who  has  no 
use  for  slovenliness.  A  style  may  be  laboriously 
formal  and~~abound  in  faults]  and  of  these, 
formality  will  be  among  the  chief. 

How  far  should  the  written  English  of  an  intelli- 
gent aiio^cuTtivated  person  differ  from  the  English 
he  uses  in  conversation?  "Writing  maketh  an 
exact  man.  In  rapid  talk  it  is  impossible  to 
prune  and  finish  sentences  after  the  manner  of  a 
careful  writer.  The  attempt  is  fatal  to  spon- 
taneity, and  forbids  that  swift  give-and-take 
which  is  tonic  to  the  wits.     The  writer,  however 

m  

free  rein  he  may  give  his  invention  in  the  first 
draft,  does  wisely  to  call  himself  to  a  strict  account 
in  the  revision,  and  take  full  advantage  of  an 
opportunity    which    the    speaker    cannot    have. 

272 


FORMALITY  AND  GOOD  FORM        273 

But  when  this  is  said,  our  question  still  confronts 
us.  It  may  do  no  harm  to  express  some  not 
quite  conventional  opinions  on  the  subject. 

To  begin  with,  I  want  to  pay  my  disrespects 
to  the  traditional-conventional  We.  Custom,  as 
such,  is  not  sacred  even  in  journalism.  If  it  be 
possible  for  the  editorial  columns  of  a  news- 
paper to  express  habitually  the  views  and  policy 
of  a  responsible  staff,  then  a  certain  dignity  and 
weight  may  attach  to  the  plural  pronoun.  On 
the  other  hand,  if  "we"  really  means  some  Hor- 
ace Greeley  with  whose  vagaries  no  able  and 
honest  corps  of  newspaper  men  could  long  be  in 
real  harmony ;  if  anonymous  journalism  takes 
refuge  behind  the  pronoun  and  the  establishment 
to  say  things  that  no  man  would  venture  to  say 
under  his  own  signature ;  if  the  prestige  of  a  great 
institution  is  exploited  to  give  a  semblance  of 
weight  and  dignity  to  views  in  themselves  and 
in  their  real  authorship  contemptible,  the  "we" 
is  false  or  cowardly.  But  you  say  the  "we"  is 
a  mere  form  and  deceives  nobody.  The  answer 
is  ready :  if  it  is  a  mere  form,  away  with  it,  and 
get  down  to  facts.  But  it  is  not  a  mere  form 
that  deceives  nobody.  We  are  "mostly  fools", 
and  with  our  eyes  wide  open  we  let   ourselves 


274  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

be  imposed  upon.  And  what  an  opportunity 
this  anonymity  affords  for  the  domination  of 
the  counting-room  and  the  "interests"  over  the 
editorial  rooms !  With  his  responsible  individual 
personality  obscured,  regarding  himself  as  a 
hireling  and  part  of  an  impersonal  machine, 
the  journalist  too  often  becomes  cynical  and 
unscrupulous.  If  all  important  editorials  were 
signed,  something  would  be  gained  for  honest 
and  conscientious  journalism,  as  well  as  for  ease. 
In  signed  articles  and  in  books,  where  the 
authorship  resides  in  an  individual  really  appear- 
ing as  such,  straightforward  simplicity  and  reality 
are  promoted  by  putting  the  pronoun  in  the  sin- 
gular number.  Where  there  is  simplicity  and 
genuineness,  grace  is  not  tar  away,  and  certainly^ 
eas'e  is  close  at  hand. 

A  In  conversation,  in  friendly  correspondence,1 
and  to  a  considerable  extent  in  public  speech, 
persons  of  undoubted  breeding  do  not  hesitate 
to  use  abbreviated  forms  like  wont  and  doesn't. 


1  In  a  short  letter  from  Wendell  Phillips,  quoted  by  Colonel  Hig- 
ginson,  I  note  "It's"  (It is),  "I've",  "you'd",  and  "dont"  [sic]. 
Phillips  was  no  clown.  Mr.  Henry  James,  writing  of  his  own  boy- 
hood, uses  "didn't",  "doesn't",  and  "wasn't."  I  have  not  cared 
to  make  in  this  book  any  use  of  the  "  Jamesesque  ".  but  undoubtedly 
Mr.  James  was  a  gentleman. 


FORMALITY  AND   GOOD  FORM        275 

In  conversation,  indeed,  they  are  so  very  much 
used,  and  with  so  much  advantage,  that  excessive 
scruple  about  them  is  a  real  offense  against  ease. 
Bearing  in  mindthat  bookish,  applied  to  style, 
rightly  conveys  disapproval,  not  to  say  a  mild 
form  of  opprobrium,  and  that  colloquial  may  be 
used  in  a  perfectly  good  sense,  we  may  inquire 
whether  colloquial  forms  of  expressionmight  not 
with  advantage  be  more  freely  used  in  serious 
writing.  Neither  in  stiff  Sunday  clothes  nor  in 
stilted  phraseology  are  we  at  our  best  and  sin- 
cerest  They  that  are  plain  gentlefolk  every 
day  will  speak  and  worship  well  on  set  occasions 
—  never  fear.  It  will  be  an  auspicious  day  for 
literature  of  all  degrees  when  women  of  wit  and 
men*  of  light  and  leading  shall  set  themselves  to 
write  as  they  talk,  in  easy  and  natural  style. 
The  elect  will  not  be  vulgar,  speaking  or_writ- 
ing.  The  vulgar  kind,  however  formal T  will 
"give  themselves  away." 

The"  writer  of  stories  must  report  conversation. 
In  general,  the  more  he  lets  his  characters  do  the 
talking,  the  better.  Shall  he  report  cohversa- 
tfrjm~conventionally,  or  realistically? 

"I  met  a  Mohawk,  some  years  later,  who  had  wit- 
nessed the  whole  affair,  from  the  bed  of  the  stream 


"S 


276  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

below,  and  he  told  me  that  the  Delaware  continued  to 
paddle,  in  the  air,  until  he  was  lost  in  the  mists  of  the 
falls." 

"I  know  the  loss  of  Mabel  would  be  found  heavy 
to  be  borne  by  myself." 

So  Fenimore  Cooper  makes  Pathfinder  speak. 
If  the  reader  thinks  that  such  a  man  as  Path- 
finder could  and  would  have  spoken  in  such  ways, 
I  have  no  controversy  with  him.  If  Cooper  was 
incapable  of  knowing  how  such  a  man  would 
have  spoken,  then  he  created  a  character  that 
he  did  not  understand.  Mabel  Dunham,  the 
sergeant's  daughter,  is  hardly  a  creation.  It 
should  not  be  difficult  to  put  into  her  mouth 
language  that  such  a  girl  might  have  used. 

"It  was  perilous  and  bold,"  said  Mabel;  "while 
looking  at  it,  I  could  have  wished  that  it  had  not 
been  attempted,  though,  now  it  is  over,  I  can  admire 
its  boldness,  and  the  steadiness  with  which  it  was 
made." 

"I  will  not  say,  Mr.  Muir,  that  compliments  on 
my  person  are  altogether  unwelcome,  for  I  should  not 
gain  credit  for  speaking  the  truth,  perhaps,"  answered 
Mabel,  with  spirit,  "but  I  will  say  that  if  you  would 
condescend  to  address  to  me  some  remarks  of  a  different 
nature,  I  may  be  led  to  believe  you  think  I  have  suffi- 
cient faculties  to  understand  them." 


FORMALITY  AND  GOOD  FORM        277 

The  market  is  not  glutted  with  better  stories 
than  Cooper's ;  but  we  have  learned  a  good  deal 
since  his  day,  and  probably  no  novelist  of  ability 
at  all  comparablewith  his  would  now  write  such 
stuff  as  "The^rocrastination  of  Jj^cjitastoophe 
she  now  fully  expected,  though  it  were  only  for 

a  moment,  atfofdecT  a  relief,"  or  speak   through 

»•        — — — * 

the  lips  of  backwoods  characters  in  a  labored  style 
like  his.  But  probably,  also,~for  some  time  yet 
Hamlet's  doctrine  of  holding  the  mirror  up  to  na- 
ture will  need  to  be  preached  withTaithful  applica- 
tion tome  literary  form  (tiction)  now  predominant. 

In  reporting  colloquialisms,  dialect.  _or  slang, 
we  should  expect  a  writer  like  Cooper  to  be  con- 
ventional  rather  than  accurate,  and  to  display 
no  great  skill.  He  carefully  puts  two  apostrophes 
in  "v'y'ge",  but  has  "ag'in"  for  against.  For 
fawn,  he  gives  us  both  "fa'n"  and  "fa'an."  For 
knowed,  which  of  course  is  dialectically  right,  he 
prints  "know'd."  Without  any  apparent  reason, 
he  spells  ye  "yee." 

The  Biglow  Papers  are  rich  enough  in  incon- 
sistencies, which  may  generally  be  accounted  for 
(doubtfully,  I  think)  by  attributing  them  to  Hosea. 
Because  the  case  is  not  clear  against  Lowell,  I 
refrain  from  quoting. 


278  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

I  see  that  Mr.  Hewlett  gives  for  a  dialect  form 
"by'n  by."  Two  apostrophes  or  none.  Mrs. 
Slosson  has  "gran'sir"  (possibly  omitting  the 
second  apostrophe  on  the  theory  that  there  is 
a  word  grandsir),  but  "natur'!  and  "pictur'." 
In  "it's  bein'  thought  likely",  an  apostrophe  is 
wrongly  inserted  in  the  pronoun  form.  In  "I 
most  died ",  she  omits  the  apostrophe ;  but  it 
seems  to  me  that  the  dictionary  is  very  liberal 
in  giving  most,  in  the  sense  of  almost,  even  in  fine 
print  and  as  "colloquial."  "Oh,  if  I  could  only 
a  seen  her!"  shows  have  clipped  at  both  ends, 
with  no  apostrophe.  "Oh  deary,  deary,  me  that's 
what  they  meant"  may  be  "blamed  on"  the 
proof-reader.  Over  against  "'round"  and 
"'mongst",  put  "bust  open." 

Another  well-known  writer  of  dialect,  Mrs. 
Hegan  Rice,  has  "twic't",  where  twicet  would 
spell  the  word  and  perfectly  represent  it.  "I 
bate  [bet]  yer"  is  something  that  I  suspect  the 
author  never  heard.  Elsewhere  she  prints  "I 
bate  ye",  which  sounds  "nateral."  Instead  of 
listenin'  (properly  pronounced  lisnin)  which  shows 
exactly  what  an  illiterate  person  says,  she  gives 
"list'nin'."  I  have  heard  a  great  deal  of  dialect 
speech,  but  I  suppose  I  never  heard  and  never 


FORMALITY  AND   GOOD  FORM        279 

shall  hear  " list'nin '."  Mrs.  Rice,  too,  has  " bust", 
without  the  apostrophe.  "I  didn't  f oiler  him", 
pronounced  as  spelled,  is  bad  dialect ;  for  if  the 
r  were  sounded,  the  h  would  certainly  be  silent. 
Mrs.  Rice's  "agin"  may  be  compared  with  her 
"ag'in  reason",  and  both  with  her  "b'ilin'." 

The  excellence  of  a  dialect  story  is  not  in  "bad 
spelling",  but,  partly,  m  good  spelling  —  that  is, 
in  spelling  that  accurately  and  consistently  indi- 
cates the  pronunciation  of  the  speakers  quoted ; 

and  so  far  as  regular  spelling  will  serve  this  pur- J 

■-  — . —  — ■ — * 

pose,  it  should  of  course  be  used. 


FORCE 


XXXV 


It  is  a  great  comfort  not  to  be  writing- a  text- 
book;  for  I  don't  believe  a  good  writer  was  ever 
made  yet  by  painful  pedagogy,  and  I  have  happy 
knowledge  of  the  potency  of  a  pregnant  hint, 
a  point  of  view  suggested,  an  illuminative  obiter 
dictum.  He  that  doesn't  care  will  never  learn 
to  write ;  and  he  that  cares  will  "take  suggestion 
as  a  cat  laps  milkJ' 

Yet  it  will  be  well  to  know  exactly  what  the 
term  Force  means  for  us,  here  and  now.  Force, 
then,  is  the  quality  that  makes  language  effective 
—  effective  to  please,  to  instruct,  to  convince, 
to  perr-uade,  to  do  whatsoever  the  user  of  language 
would  have  it  do.  Iforce  is  the  masterful  quality 
that  commands  attention^ 

Yes,  effectiveness  may  be  due  to  other  qualities 
of  style;  and  here  we  see  again  how  the  good 
qualities  are  interrelated   and   in  a  way  insepa- 

283 


284  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

rable.  But  a  sentence  or  a  discourse  may  have 
the  other  good  qualities  (and  therefore  be  effec- 
tive)  and  yet  be  deficient  in  this  which  differs 
from  them  all.  Its  effectiveness  will,  then^fall 
short  of  the  maximum.  Again,  the  other  qualities 
may  be  more  or  less  lacking,  yet  what  is  saidjnay 
be  so  forcible  as  to  produce  great  effect,_though, 
never  the  greatest. 

A  weak  and  spiritless  person,  without  convic- 
tion  or"~passion,  will  not  achieve  a  forcible  style ; 
whole-hearted  faith,  imperious  will,  intensity  of 
feeling,  powerful  imagination  will  find  effective 
expression  inevitably.  But  here  we  have  to 
do  with  the  literary  form,  which  can  by  the 
plain  common  writer  be  more  or  less  determined 
while  the  ink  flows;  and  no  writer's  force  of 
character  is  so  great,  or  spirit  so  Damascus- 
tempered,  but  that  he  must  needs  take  thought 
of  everv-dav  craftsmanship  if  he_ffioald  do  jiis 
best. 

In  the  old  days  of  "Natural  Philosophy  ",  strik- 
ing  force  was  said  to  vary  directly  as  the  square 
of  the  velocity.  ^  Tediousness  is  the  uimardon- 
able^pffense.  Sweeping  formulas,  like  proverbs, 
may  be  of  great  use  as  summing  up  in  small 
compass    the   gist    of    many    sound    judgments. 


GOOD  THEORY  285 

Hold  fast  to  the  rule —  the  exceptions  will  generally 
take  care  of  themselves.  Another  formula  against 
the  tedious  style  is  that  Force  varies  inversely 
with  the  number  of  words.  We  naturally  thTnkof 
tediousness  as  a  quality  of  paragraphs ;  still 
more,  of  chapters,  and  of  the  discourse  as  a  whole? 
But  he  that  avoids  weakness  in  his  sentences 
will  hardly  be  dull  and  tiresome  in  the  larger  units. 


Hence  these  coming  chapters  need  not  be  made 
tedious  by  long  extracts^ 

If  the  writer's  aim  is  simply  to  give  pleasure, 
evidently  whatever  is  disagreeable  will  not  be 
effective  for  his  purpose;  unless,  of  course,  it 
serves  some  ulterior  end,  as  the  woes  of  the  heroine 
may  enhance  the  interest  of  the  plot  and  the  satis- 
faction of  the  "lived  happy  ever  after."  In 
the  detail  of  composition,  most  of  the  disagree- 
able things  serve  no  good  purpose  whatever. 
One  may  intend  to  give  pain,  as  in  describing 
the  1  orrors  of  cruelty  to  awaken  sympathy  and 
moral  indignation,  or  in  holding  the  mirror  up 
to  the  reader's  baser  nature  to  make  him  ashamed 
of  himself.     Here,  again,  whatever _is~-BeedIessly 

distasteful    or distracting    or    obstructive    will 

in  one  way  or  another  tend  to  lessen  the  writej's 


power  over  him  who  reads.     When  Nathan  said 

- — — «* 


286  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

unto  David  Thou  art  the  man,  if  he  was  wise  he 
did  not  say  it  "through  his  nose",  or  make  his 
speech  raucous,  snarling,  and  contemptible.  The 
less  faulty  his  utterance,  the  more  effective.  The 
purer  his  tone,  the  more  penetrating. 

Many  things  of  which  most  writers  take  little 
accounF~are  disagreeable,  distracting,  obstruc- 
tive.  The  sensitive  and  critical  reader  knows 
them  at  sight,  is  consciously  annoyed  and  impeded 
by  them.  Upon  the  mind  not  finely  constituted 
ancl  trained,  they  may  have  a  like  effect,  even 
when  the  reader  could  give  no  intelligent  account 
of  it.  Whatever  I  set  myself  to  accomplish,  in 
whatever  sphere  of  activity,  I  must  go  straight- 
forwardly at  it,  avoiding  all  waste,  all  irrelevancy 
and  awkwardness,  if  I  am  to  succeed  best  at  least 
j  expense.  Tools  that  are  clean,  well-shapen,  sharp, 
I  and  handled  according  to  the  principles  of  "scien- 
tific management "  will  do  effective  work.  Noth- 
ing less  fit  will  measure  up  to  requirements  under 
modern  "service  conditions." 

This  introductory  chapter  may  close  with 
two  forcible  sentences,  which  happen  to  lie 
before  me. 

About  noon  we  had  another  rain-storm  with  keen 
startling  thunder,  the  metallic  ringing,  clashing,  clang- 


GOOD  THEORY  287 

ing  notes  gradually  fading  into  a  low  bass  rolling  and 
muttering  in  the  distance.  (Muir.) 

But  Lincoln  was  always  a-making;  he  would  have 
died  unfinished  if  the  terrible  storms  of  the  war  had 
not  stung  him  to  learn  in  those  four  years  what  no 
other  twenty  could  have  taught  him.  (Wilson.) 


XXXVI 

BAD  PRACTICE 

If  you  would  have  your  way  with  me,  pray 
give  me  something,  if  possible,  that  I  can  like. 
A  good  way  to  find  out  whether  or  not  a  sentence 
is  likable  is  to  find  out  whether  you  really  like 
it  yourself. 

If  the  rich  had  only  what  they  earned, 
And  the  poor  had  all  that  they  earned, 
All  wheels  would  revolve  more  slowly 
And  life  would  be  more  sane. 

If  the  above  were  printed  as  prose,  it  would  be 
proper  to  attach  to  it  Dr.  Rauschenbusch's  name. 
I  remember  a  "great  reader"  whose  critical  ap- 
proval was  expressed  by  "Strong ;  very  strong  ! '' 
Such  commendation  would  be  worth  more  if  it 
were  more  discriminating ;  but  such  as  it  is,  it 
could  hardly  be  applied  to  the  sentence  with 
which  I  have  taken  liberties.  This  sentence  is 
neither  verse  nor  prose.     A  little  time  and  thought 

288 


BAD  PRACTICE  289 

given    to    rewriting    would    easily    transform    it 
into  one  worthy  of  the  thought  expressed. 

He  can  say,  in  the  words  of  Dunoyer,  "  Je  n*  impose 
rien,  je  ne  propose  meme  rien :  j' 'expose"  I  offer  neither 
impositions  nor  propositions,  but  expositions. 

(Hadley.) 

Better  sacrifice  something  else,  rtest-ce  pas? 
than  throw  away  the  strength  and  neatness  of 
the  original  in  a  vain  attempt  to  imitate  it. 

Probably  most  writers,  if  not  all,  need  to  be 
vigilant  lest  they  fall  into  small  mannerisms  that 
weaken  their  style.  The  use  of  when  in  the  sense 
of  and  then  need  not  be  utterly  condemned,  but 
one  soon  gets  enough  of  it.  At  his  best,  Mr. 
Burroughs  writes  so  well  that  one  wishes  he  would 
stay  at  his  best. 

You  are  rambling  on  the  mountain,  accompanied  by 
your  dog,  when  you  are  startled  .  .  . 

[Next  sentence]  You  speak  to  him  sharply,  when  he 
bristles  up  .  .  . 

When  about  halfway  I  accidentally  made  a  slight 
noise,  when  the  bird  flew  up  .  .  . 

Would  he  talk  in  that  way?     The  two  uses  of 
when  in  the  third  sentence  go  ill  together. 

A  phrase,  a  word,  or  a  syllable  gets  itself  awk- 


290 


WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 


wardly  repeated  with  a  weak  and  childish  effect. 
It  pays  to  read  over  what  one  has  written. 


One  side  of  the  sideboard 
and  part  of  the  side  wall  of 
the  room  were  on  fire  and 
these  were  extinguished. 

We  insist  that  men  should 
not  mistake,  as  they  are 
prone  to  mistake,  this  natural 
taste  for  the  bathos  for  a 
relish  for  the  sublime.  (Ar- 
nold.) 

To  have  as  traveling  com- 
panion a  commentator  as 
penetrating  as  Harriet  Mar- 
tineau,  had  the  quick  re- 
ward .  .  .     (Brooks.) 

.  .  .  the  reception  of  doc- 
trine, as,  and  so  far  as,  it  is 
met  and  apprehended  by  the 
mind,  which  will  be  dif- 
ferently, as  he  considers,  in 
different  persons,  in  the  shape 
of  orthodoxy  in  one,  hetero- 
doxy in  another.  (New- 
man.) 

The  First  Epistle  of  St. 
Peter  commends  itself  as 
much,  one  may  say,  as  the 
genuine  work  of  the  author 
whose  name  it  bears,  as  the 
Second  Epistle  bespeaks  itself 
the  contrary.     (Arnold.) 


Extinguishing  side  of  side 
and  part  of  side  is  good,  in 
more  ways  than  one.  I  won- 
der what  "these"  really 
means. 

A  lover  of  Arnold's  style 
can  forgive  his  mannerisms; 
but  this  weak  rhythmical 
heedless  jog-trot  is  too  bad. 
Can  it  be  that  he  would  have 
defended  it  ? 

The  middle  "as"  might 
well  be  so.  "To  have"  is 
not  a  good  subject  for  "had." 
One  is  rewarded  for  doing 
rather  than  for  having. 

Repetition  and  straddle 
are  not  the  only  faults.  To 
what  does  "which"  relate? 
What  is  the  construction  of 
"differently"?  And  of  "in 
the  shape"?  Is  it  necessary 
to  drag  the  sentence  out 
monotonously,  and  cut  it  up 
tiresomely  with  commas? 

Of  course  Matthew  Arnold 
had  the  literary  skill  to  com- 
pare these  two  epistles  with 
respect  to  internal  evidence 
of  genuineness,  expressing 
his  opinion  exactly  in  a  good 
and  forcible  English  sentence. 


BAD  PRACTICE 


291 


There  is  probably  no  coun- 
try [sic]  where  new  inven- 
tions .  .  .  are  as  readily  wel- 
comed and  as  quickly  taken 
up  as  in  America.  (Van 
Dyke.) 

Indeed,  English  is  quite 
as  well  qualified  to  serve  as  a 
world-language  as  Latin  or 
as  French.     (Matthews.) 

Now  that  we  have  thor- 
oughly suffered  this  Jack- 
son change  and  it  is  over,  we 
are  ready  to  recognize  it  as 
quite  as  radically  American 
as  anything  in  all  our  his- 
tory.    (Wilson.) 


Why  omit  the  other  ?  And 
why  perpetrate  the  feminism, 
when  so  readily  and  so 
quickly  would  have  been 
euphonious,  forcible,  exactly 
right  ? 

There  seems  to  have  been 
at  least  some  temporary  lack 
of  studium  (here  interest,  at- 
tention) et  aures. 

If  I  were  composing  an 
Epistle  to  a  Young  Person 
Looking  Forward  to  a  Liter- 
ary Career,  I  would  bid  hiin 
ever  strive  to  winnow  out 
the  Pestiferous  little  Par- 
ticle AS. 


El-constructed  sentences  are  like  an  ill-groomed 
and  shambling  salesman  —  they  are  handicapped 
in  "getting  results." 


Bob  Wren,  a  quarterback 
whose  feats  rivaled  those  of 
Dean's.     (Roosevelt.) 

.  .  .  and  perhaps  no  great 
national  sorrow  was  ever 
more  nobly  preserved  in  song 
than  was  accomplished  in  the 
"Hymn  in  time  of  Famine" 
in  Ireland.     (Higginson.) 

What  difference  does  it 
make   if    we    have    chattel 


Those  of  Dean's  quarter- 
back? Nay,  I  know  my 
man  too  well  to  think  so. 

Good  words,  until  the 
comparison  has  to  come  — 
then  the  sentence  ignomin- 
iously  breaks  down.  The 
safeguard  against  such  weak- 
ness is  plain  hard  work. 

Misuse  of  "if",  followed 
by  its  correct  use.     Needlesa 


292 


WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 


slavery  or  not,  if  masters 
and  slaves  are  the  same  kind 
of  individuals  under  condi- 
tions of  freedom  as  under 
conditions  of  bondage  ? 

But,  such  as  he  is,  he  is 
(and  posterity  too,  I  am 
quite  sure,  will  say  this),  in 
the  European  poetry  of  that 
quarter  of  a  century  which 
follows  the  death  of  Goethe, 
incomparably  the  most  im- 
portant figure.     (Arnold.) 


multiplication  of  words  added 
to  the  ill  effect  of  provincial- 
ism in  diction.  A  brief, 
pointed  statement  would  be 
effective. 

The  funny  jingle  at  the 
beginning  is  too  much  for  the 
dignity  of  the  sentence.  A 
sonorous  close  hardly  undoes 
the  mischief.  Good  counsel 
for  great  and  small :  If  your 
sentence  is  weak,  tear  it 
down  and  rebuild  it. 


Too  many  thats  spoil  the  broth. 


.  .  .  that,  though  he  was 
endlessly  kind  and  absolutely 
faithful,  yet  that  few  made 
any  vital  difference  to  him. 
(Benson.) 

.  .  .  and  perhaps  that  was 
why  .  .  .  that  he  instantly 
assumed  .  .  .     (Black.) 

.  .  .  did  not  notice  how 
that  the  cold  blue  light  .  .  . 
was  gradually  yielding  to  a 
silver-gray.     (Black.) 

We  must  warn  ourselves 
against  the  old  misconcep- 
tion of  salvation,  that  as- 
sumes that  if  only  we  have 
faith  we  do  not  need  to  lay 
very  much  stress  upon  being 
good.     (Coe.) 


Benson  has  the  same  thing 
elsewhere.  The  reading  pub- 
lic ought  to  hold  a  deliberate 
essayist  to  a  high  standard 
of  finish. 

A  worthy  country  school- 
master :  "I  told  him  what 
that  I  thought  about  it." 

Of  "what  that",  "why 
that",  and  "how  that",  per- 
haps the  last  is  the  least  bad ; 
but  it  is  not  good. 

The  comma  after  "salva- 
tion" prepares  the  way  for 
the  relative  which;  and  there 
seems  to  be  no  sufficient 
reason  for  not  using  it. 
There  is  reason,  here,  for  not 
using  "that." 


BAD   PRACTICE  293 

In  general,  which  gets  more  than  its  due. 


.  .  .  not  far  from  the 
spot  which  was  destined  to 
witness  the  terrible  tragedy 
which  was  at  once  to  darken 
and  glorify  the  life  of  .  .  . 
Charles  Lamb.     (Birrell.) 


Not  only  too  much  of 
"which",  but  too  much  of 
"which  was."  Birrell  could 
easily  have  made  a  better 
compacted  sentence.  Clever 
writers  should  write  cleverly. 


.  .  .  which  richly  deserve 
the  kind  of  punishment  which 
this  great  humorist  adminis- 
tered.    (Brooks.) 


One  "which"  taken  away 
would  add  idiomatic  ease  and 
force.  And  "which  richly" 
is  not  good. 


.  .  .  the  power  which  was 
moving  his  son,  and  which 
was  part  of  the  religious  re- 
vival which  swept  Europe. 
(Miss  Addams.) 


Too  busy  ?  Get  a  private 
secretary.  Almost  every 
book  one  reads  could  have 
been  greatly  improved  by  a 
few  plodding  day's-works. 


.  .  .  figures  which  possess, 
above  all,  that  winning  at- 
tractiveness which  there  is 
no  man  but  would  willingly 
exercise,  and  which  resemble 
those  works  of  art  which, 
though  not  meant  to  be  very 
great  or  imposing,  are  yet 
wrought  of  the  choicest  ma- 
terial.    (Pater.) 


Not  only  the  weak  repeti- 
tion (one,  two,  three,  four) 
of  an  unpleasant  word,  but 
an  inelegant  parallelism  of 
structure  between  the  two 
overloaded  complex  relative 
clauses  connected  by  "and." 
I  seem  to  recall  a  phrase, 
"the  comely  decadence  of 
Pater."     This  isn't  comely. 


Dick  trotted  behind  with 
what  was  intended  to  be  a 
look  of  composure,  but  which 
was,  in  fact,  a  rather  silly 
expression  of  feature  .  .  . 
(Hardy.) 


The  pronoun  "what"  is 
both  antecedent  and  relative. 
As  relative  it  is  properly 
subject  of  the  two  verbs  that 
follow  it ;  and  "which"  is  an 
intruder.     "Slipshod." 


294  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

"Of  making  many  books  there  is  no  end, 
and  much  study  is  a  weariness  of  the  flesh." 
The  flesh  of  the  makers  of  books  seems  to  shrink 
from  the  weariness  of  patient  revision.  Why 
not  make  of  it  a  pastime  ?  "  Brainy  "  men  will 
work  their  brains  hard  in  playing  whist,  and 
consider  it  recreation.  Revision  of  literary  detail 
makes  sufficient  demand  upon  the  wits  to  be 
very  interesting,  without  the  severer  strain  of 
creation  or  large  construction.  Horace  does 
not  seem  to  have  thought  the  labor  limae,  at  least 
in  poetry,  too  humble  for  a  man  of  genius.  If 
prose  is  worth  while,  it  is  worth  while  to  finish 
it.  Of  course  if  the  author  does  not  care  to  finish 
his  own  work,  it  may  be  made  very  decent  by  a 
"hired  hand  ",  at  so  much  an  hour. 


XXXVII 

LINE  UPON  LINE,  PRECEPT  UPON  PRECEPT 

"  Must  give  his  days  and  nights  to  the  volumes 
of  Addison."  Possibly  the  good  old  orthodox 
advice  has  been  a  trifle  one-sided.  Read  the 
best,  I  would  rather  say,  for  refreshment,  invigora- 
tion,  discipline,  inspiration,  sweetness,  and  light 
—  never  mind  about  "  models."  When  the  Bible 
and  Shakespere  have  come  to  be  a  part  of  you, 
when  it  has  become  natural  to  think  in  terms 
of  "  the  best  that  has  been  thought  and  said  in 
the  world  ",  it  may  be  that  you  will  have  some- 
thing of  your  own  that  needs  to  be  said.  If  so, 
say  it  in  your  own  way,  as  well  as  you  can.  Then 
set  your  masterpiece  aside  to  cool.  In  due  time 
attack  it  with  your  critical  faculties  and  by  cheer- 
ful hard  work  make  the  medium  fit  to  convey  the 
message. 

But  in  these  pages  we  are  letting  some  very 
considerable  writers  (and  others)   show  us  how 

295 


296  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

not  to  write.  Is  this  a  bad  use  to  make  of  our 
good  friends?  If  I  like  my  favorites  less  for 
reading  them  with  discrimination,  so  be  it.  I 
am  quite  content  to  prove  all  things  and  hold 
fast  that  which  is  good.  Reading  in  this  spirit, 
I  keep  finding  passages  which,  tested  for  force, 
are  not  up  to  standard. 

.  .  .  they  felt  falsely  guilty  for  their  omissions,  as 
if  they  really  had  been  duties  to  art  and  history  which 
must  be  discharged  .  .  .  (Howells.) 

An  over-particular  person  might  object  to  the 
purposeless  alliteration.  Then  he  would  be  held 
up  by  the  question  whether  Mr.  H.  in  his  dissec- 
tion of  middle-class  consciousness  really  dis- 
criminates a  feeling  of  false  guilt.  One  may  feel 
guilty  and  think  he  is  innocent,  perhaps;  but 
to  speak  of  feeling  "falsely  guilty"  seems  like 
a  contradiction  of  terms.  Perhaps,  however, 
Mr.  Howells  can  feel  that  way.  Again,  what- 
ever the  dictionary  may  say,  identification  of 
"omissions"  with  "duties"  here  puts  a  strain 
on  language. 

It  may  be  said  that  Howells  does  not  choose  to 
write  in  a  forcible  style.  Certainly  he  does  not 
affect  the  sledge-hammer  method;    but  is  weak- 


LINE   UPON  LINE  297 

ness  his  aim  ?  It  may  be  lese-majeste  to  say  this, 
but  I  believe  a  great  deal  of  the  dissatisfaction 
undoubtedly  felt  with  his  later  novels  is  due 
to  their  weakness.  Working  under  his  peculiar 
theory  of  realism,  he  sometimes  employs  his  great 
gifts  and  trained  powers  in  doing  what  many  of 
us  believe  is  not  worth  doing.  We  are  more  or 
less  entertained  while  he  anatomizes  not  "Regan" 

—  that  might  be  worth  while  —  but,  say,  a  thin- 
blooded  literary  man  and  his  rather  silly  wife; 
but  there  is  no  virile  compulsive  force  in  the  work 

—  it  does  not  grip  us.  To  change  the  figure, 
it  is  not  tonic.  Now  if  a  single  sentence,  instead 
of  driving  home  in  vigorous  fashion  a  thought 
clearly  conceived  and  pointedly  expressed,  as 
well  as  worth  expressing,  gives  occasion  for  scat- 
tering one's  wits  in  queries  that  come  at  nothing 
either  wise  or  witty,  that  sentence  is  not  effective ; 
it  is  weak.  And  sentences  are  the  stuff  that 
books  are  made  of.1 

Right  Reason  .  .  .  leads  the  mind  to  the  Catholic 
Faith,  and  plants  it  there,  and  teaches  it  in  its  religious 
speculations  to  act  under  its  guidance.     (Newman.) 

1  Speaking  of  realism  —  I  was  pleased  with  this  sentence  in 
Aldrich's  Ponkapog  Papers :  "The  art  of  the  realistic  novelist  some- 
times seems  akin  to  that  of  the  Chinese  tailor  who  perpetuated  the 
old  patch  on  the  new  trousers." 


298  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

If  "  the  Catholic  Faith  "  were  a  place,  like  Rome, 
the  adverb  "there"  might  be  justified  by  usage. 
The  middle  part  of  the  sentence  is  harshly  con- 
sonantal, and  the  pronouns  are  not  well  handled. 
I  have  a  theory  that  Newman  was  an  artist 
in  spite  of  himself.  His  gift  came  from  no  evil 
source ;  he  might  have  acknowledged  it  thank- 
fully and  cherished  it  devoutly. 

No  one  can  say  that  this  multitude  of  observers  is 
not  in  earnest,  nor  their  work  honest,  nor  their  methods 
competent.  (Drummond.) 

This  sentence  is  effective,  but  in  the  wrong 
direction.  It  is  exasperating.  Dealing  in  a  me- 
chanical fashion  with  the  word  "nor",  equivalent 
to  and  not,  we  might  say  and  their  work  is  not 
honest,  and  their  methods  are  not  competent.  This 
interpretation  would  construe  the  sentence  as 
logical ;  but  it  probably  misrepresents  Drum- 
mond's  meaning,  which  I  take  to  be  nor  that  their 
work  is  not  honest,  nor  that  their  methods  are  not 
competent.  When  we  have  reached  this  conclusion, 
we  haven't  gone  far  towards  being  impressed 
with  the  soundness  and  weight  of  Drummond's 
teaching.  "He  was  not  writing,"  you  say,  "for 
gerund-grinders  and  pedants.     The  serious  reader 


LINE   UPON  LINE  299 

understands  him  well  enough,  and  goes  on." 
I  don't  mind  your  calling  names,  my  dear  objector ; 
but  the  undisciplined  thinkers  for  whom  "any 
old"  form  of  statement  will  be  "well  enough" 
are  not  the  ones  in  whose  minds  the  seeds  of 
truth  germinate  to  good  purpose.  They  cannot 
be  taken  seriously  as  thinkers.  It  may  be  that  the 
qualities  which  gave  Drummond  a  great  but 
short-lived  popularity  prevented  the  serious  recog- 
nition that  his  work  deserved.  Am  I  snobbish? 
I  want  the  men  and  women  of  the  great  Democ- 
racy to  do  their  indispensable  part  in  the  world's 
thinking.  To  that  end  I  would  have  them  know 
something  of  right  thinking  by  knowing  something 
of  "  the  form  of  sound  words." 

.  .  .  but  what  is  our  dogmatic  theology,  except 
mis-attribution  to  the  Bible  ...  of  a  science  and  an 
a1  struse  metaphysic  which  is  not  there,  because  our 
theologians  have  in  themselves  a  faculty  for  science, 
for  it  makes  one-eighth  of  them  ?  (Arnold.) 

No  wonder  if  lesser  men  break  forth  in  babble ! 
A  causal  clause  is  naturally  construed  not  with 
a  noun  but  with  a  verb;  and  this  causal  clause 
is  put  with  a  verb,  instead  of  the  noun  that 
Arnold  would  have  it  modify.  Then  the  "for" 
clause,  which  looks  as  if  it  were  lugged  in  for  the 


300  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

sake  of  the  mannerism,  adds  to  the  chaos.  I  sup- 
pose, moreover,  that  the  preposition  "except" 
is  not  well  chosen. 

But  in  these  old-fashioned,  affectionate  letters, 
transmitted  often,  in  those  troublous  times,  with  so 
much  difficulty,  we  have  what  is  almost  as  graphic  — 
a  numerous  group,  in  which,  although  so  many  of 
Browne's  children  died  young,  he  was  happy;  with 
Dorothy  Browne,  occasionally  adding  her  charming, 
ill-spelt  postscripts  to  her  husband's  letters;  the  reli- 
gious daughter  who  goes  to  daily  prayers  after  the 
Restoration,  which  brought  Browne  the  honour  of 
knighthood ;  and,  above  all,  two  Toms,  son  and  grand- 
son of  Sir  Thomas,  the  latter  being  the  son  of  Dr. 
Edward  Browne,  now  become  distinguished  as  a  phy- 
sician in  London  (who  attended  John,  earl  of  Roches- 
ter, in  his  last  illness  at  Woodstock)  and  his  childish 
existence  as  he  lives  away  from  his  proper  home  in 
London,  in  the  old  house  at  Norwich,  two  hundred 
years  ago,  we  see  like  a  thing  of  to-day.  (Pater.) 

If  such  a  tremendous  sentence  were  perfectly 
clear,  and  perfectly  normal  in  its  structure,  there 
might  be  some  chance  that  it  would  be  effective 
with  sane  readers.  Let  us  dismiss  it  as  rubbish. 
That  Pater  could  write  real  and  effective  Eng- 
lish, the  following  extract  proves  : 

The  spiritual  body  had  anticipated  the  formal 
moment  of  death ;   the  alert  soul,  in  that  tardy  decay, 


LINE  UPON  LINE 


301 


changing  its  vesture  gradually,  and  as  if  piece  by  piece. 
The  infinite  future  had  invaded  this  life  perceptibly 
to  the  senses,  like  the  ocean  felt  far  inland  up  a  tidal 


river. 


Referring  to  the  decline  of  life,  I  have  a  sentence 
from  Aldrich,  strongly  contrasting  with  Pater's, 
but  perfect,  I  think,  in  its  way : 

To  keep  the  heart  unwrinkled,  to  be  hopeful,  kindly, 
cheerful,  reverent  —  that  is  to  triumph  over  old  age. 

Here  are  some  specimens  to  which  the  reader 
may  attach  his  own  label : 


But  a  religion  of  experi- 
ence, if  such  be  possible, 
would  be  a  no  less  glorious 
vindication  of  the  truth  than 
exposure  of  error.     (Coe.) 


The  meaning  might  be 
more  felicitously  expressed : 
.  .  .  would  vindicate  the  truth 
no  less  gloriously  than  it 
would  expose  error. 


When  a  growing  and  dar-  When    a    mind    puts    his 

ing  mind  puts    his  hand  to  hand  somewhere,  things  are 

a   great     work mixed,    and    the   mixture   is 

(Rauschenbusch.)  weak. 


.  .  .  she  would  have  liked 
to  have  lain  down  .  .  .  and 
lose  herself  in  the  forgetful- 
ness  of  an  eternal  sleep. 
(Churchill.) 

The  gifted  singer  can  bo 
had  for  an  evening,  the  en- 
tertainment of  kings  can  be 


He  that  would  have  his 
way  with  the  discerning 
reader  should  write  with 
proper  respect  for  his  intel- 
ligence and  good  taste. 

What  kind  of  a  thing  is 
"the  reflected  importance 
upou  the  entertainer ",   and 


302 


WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 


reached  with  the  reflected 
importance  upon  the  enter- 
tainer.    (Hall.) 

a  characteristic 
which  neither  of  the  listeners 
shared,  and  scarcely  under- 
stood.    (Margaret  Deland.) 

It  brought  a  serious  joy 
into  her  eyes,  which  he 
noticed  as  they  sat  side  by 
side  in  the  prayer  meeting, 
singing  from  the  same  book, 
or  standing  together  in  prayer. 
(Deland.) 

...  it  lay  on  Colonel 
Sapt  to  secure  security  as  to 
the  King  ever  having  been 
in  need  of  rescue.  (Anthony 
Hope.) 

...  we  got  everything 
ready  —  including  additions 
to  the  pigskin  library,  which 
included  .  .  .     (Roosevelt.) 

We  are  gravely  requested 
to  have  no  opinion,  or,  hav- 
ing one,  to  suppress  it,  on 
the  one  topic  that  has  occu- 
pied caucuses,  newspapers, 
and  Congress  for  the  last 
dozen  years,  lest  we  endanger 
the  safety  of  the  Union. 
(Lowell.) 


how  can  "the  entertainment 
of  kings"  be  reached  with  it  ? 

"Effective"  — but  in  the 
wrong  way.  One  wonders 
how  so  good  a  writer  can  do 
so  ill ! 

So  they  "sat  side  by  side" 
"standing  together  in 
prayer"!  Surely  the  style 
would  be  invigorated  by 
making  the  members  of  the 
sentence  stand  together  in 
some  logical  relation. 

Possibly  "lay  on"  is  good ; 
certainly    ' '  secure    security 
is  bad;    the  ear  of  at  least 
one  reader  is  displeased  by 
"King"  for  King's. 

More  strenuous  work  in 
the  writing  would  have  made 
the  sentence  clearer,  neater, 
and  less  weak. 

The  sentence  might  be 
made  far  more  forcible  by 
putting  it : 

On  the  one  topic  .  .  . 
dozen  years,  we  are  gravely 
requested  to  have  no  opinion, 
or,  having  one,  to  suppress 
it,  lest  we  endanger  the  safety 
of  the  Union. 


Mr.  Bliss  Perry  speaks  of  "a  time  like  ours, 
when  everybody  writes  'well  enough',  and  few 


LINE   UPON   LINE  303 

try  to  write  perfectly."  Ay,  there's  the  rub. 
Let  every  writer  try  to  write  perfectly,  instead 
of  cynically  or  indolently  or  mercenarily  giving 
us  what  is  "wellenojighlliojLhis  immediate  pur- 
pose,  and  we  shall  have  not  only  better  literature, 
but  better  men  and  women. 


XXXVIII 

HERE  A  LITTLE  AND  THERE  A  LITTLE 

It  is  not  always  easy  to  make  a  neat  and  logical 
classification  of  weaknesses.  In  e very-day  life 
they  come  unclassified,  each  to  be  suffered  or 
dealt  with  as  it  occurs.  I  group  here  some  ex- 
tracts each  of  which  I  had  marked  "Cut  it"  — 
a  very  good  mark  to  put  upon  one's  own  work, 
as  well  as  the  other  man's.  Aldrich  says :  "They 
[his  characters]  will  talk,  and  I  have  to  let  them ; 
but  when  the  story  is  finished,  I  go  over  the  dia- 
logue and  strike  out  four  fifths  of  the  long 
speeches."     (Good,  though  it  might  be  clearer.) 


There  is  need  of  a  clear- 
ing up  of  our  notion  of  what 
constitutes  a  moral  life. 
(Coe.) 


We  need  to  clear  up  our 
notion.  Cutting  out  abstract 
and  verbal  nouns,  we  don't 
lose  much. 


Paul  held  no  anti-slavery 
meetings,  and  Peter  made  no 
public  protest  against  the 
organized     grafting     in     the 


Why  not  against  organized 
graft  in  Roman  tax-farming? 
Of  course  not  would  have  been 
enough,     and     would     have 


304 


HERE  A  LITTLE,  THERE  A  LITTLE    305 


Roman  system  of  tax-farm- 
ing. Of  course  they  did  not. 
(Rauschenbusch. ) 

He  proposed  numerous 
strategic  movements  to  be 
made  upon  the  logs,  whereby 
they  would  move  more  swiftly 
than  usual.     (Mrs.  Riggs.) 

...  to  cross  the  space 
of  clouded  light  beyond,  and 
gain  the  darkness  of  the  ilex 
avenue  beyond.  (Mrs.  Hum- 
phry Ward.) 

The  justification  of  con- 
sciousness is  the  having  of  it. 
(Royce.) 

If  most  of  the  people  at 
the  North  had  not  had  heads 
moi  '.  cool  and  sensible  than 
the  one  which  rested  upon 
the  shoulders  of  the  ardent 
"Ben"  Wade,  the  alarming 
prediction  of  that  lively 
spokesman  might  have  been 
fulfilled.     (Morse.) 

Very  much  more  than  is 
the  case  with  other  men, 
Lincoln  meant  different 
things  to  different  persons 
.  .  .     (Morse.) 


minimized  the  lack  of  har- 
mony in  form  between  the 
two  sentences. 

I  will  not  quarrel  with  the 
first  five  words,  if  for  the 
rest  I  may  write  to  make  the 
logs  move  faster. 


Surely  one  "beyond" 
might  have  been  spared. 
If  not,  then  that  might  have 
been  added  to  bolster  up  the 
second. 

"Doin'  of  it"  and  "hevin' 
on't"  belong  to  the  rustic 
dialect. 

Mr.  Morse  was  perhaps 
thinking  of  Kent's  snappy 
speech  in  Lear,  Act  II,  Sc.  2 ; 
but  he  has  not  improved  upon 
it,  or  improved  his  sentence 
by  spinning  it  out  to  a  feeble 
tenuity.  His  forty  words 
might  be  cut  to  exactly 
twenty. 

The  unnecessary  words  "is 
the  case  with"  serve  only,  I 
think,  to  weaken  and  blemish 
a  good  sentence. 


There    would    be    a   considerable   economy   of 
time,   and   more  force   but   perhaps   less  fun,  if 


S06 


WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 


saying  a  thing  once  might  suffice.  I  read  in  the 
Outlook  of  "a  class  to  meet  at  4  p.m.  on  Sunday 
afternoons",  and  in  the  Chicago  Tribune  that 
"The  great  field  Marshal  von  Moltke  was  fa- 
mous for  his  taciturnity  and  for  the  rarity  of  his 
words."  Mr.  Cooper,  writer  on  "Craftsman- 
ship", deals  with  the  question  "Just  precisely 
what  literary  form  is  the  best  possible  form." 
Mr.  Chesterton  says,  "We  do  it  by  definitely 
defining  his  rights." 

Notwithstanding  Professor  Lounsbury's  views, 
probably  many  of  Pater's  readers  are  so  obsessed 
with  etymology  that  when  he  writes,  "we  watch 
to  the  end  for  the  traces  where  the  nobler  hand 
has  glanced  along,  leaving  its  vestiges,  as  if  acci- 
dentally or  wastefully,  in  the  rising  of  the  style," 
they  may  be  tempted  to  think  irreverently  of 
the  footprints  of  a  hand  in  the  rising  of  a  style. 
The  following  deserves  to  be  in  a  paragraph  by 
itself : 

"The  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter,"  therefore,  is 
that  the  social  factor  is  the  essential  factor  in  the  prob- 
lem of  individual  redemption.  With  this  unsolved, 
nothing  else  will  for  a  single  moment  avail.  With  this 
conquered  everything  else  is  easy.  This  is  the  strategic 
point  to  be  assailed  .  .  .  This  is  the  "nearest  duty  " 
...  (J.  H.  Holmes.) 


HERE  A  LITTLE,  THERE  A  LITTLE    307 

Being  in  hearty  sympathy  with  this  progressive 
preacher's  zeal  for  social  welfare,  I  should  be  sorry 
to  misunderstand  him;  but  one  smiles  at  a  "fac- 
tor" to  be  solved  and  "conquered",  which  is  a 
"strategic  point"  and  a  "duty"  —  and  that  is 
what  he  seems  to  mean. 

There  is  a  gentleman  in  Philadelphia  who  writes 
for  innumerable  Ladies.  Under  the  caption 
"Style  in  Writing  ",  he  says : 

The  man  who  thinks  more  about  style  than  what 
he  has  to  say  never  succeeds;  never  reaches  an  audi- 
ence that  is  always  waiting  for  a  man  who  knows 
something  which  the  world  wants  to  hear  and  is  worth 
hearing. 

So  full  of  "what  he  has  to  say",  and  so  nobly 
negligent  of  style,  he  has  left  something  for  the 
reader  to  puzzle  over.  What  is  the  subject  of 
"  is  worth  hearing  "  ?  If  it  be  "  who  ",  his  sentence 
is  grammatical,  but  unfortunately  worded.  If 
"which"  is  the  subject,  it  is  too  hard-worked; 
being  also  object  of  "hear."  Another  relative 
(who  or  which  according  to  the  meaning  intended), 
standing  as  subject  of  "is  worth  hearing",  would 
make  the  sentence  do  its  work;  but  there  are 
too  many  relatives  already.  After  "audience", 
which  might  properly  take  the  place  of  the  nat- 


308  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

urally  restrictive  "that";  and  then  the  way 
would  be  opened  for  further  changes  in  the  direc- 
tion of  clearness  and  ease.  But  the  sentence,  so 
exemplarily  weak,  should  stand  unaltered. 

Some  one,  whose  name  I  have  lost,  says  that 
"her  eyes  had  flown  so  straightly  homeward  to 
his."  This  is  probably  not  the  only  instance  in 
literature  in  which  eyes  have  taken  to  themselves 
wings;  but  I  quote  the  clause  on  account  of  the 
superlative  and  exquisite  weakness  of  that  pan- 
taletted  adverb  "straightly." 

Mr.  Burroughs  says  "you  hurl  a  stone  at  a 
chipmunk."  It  is  mean  enough  to  throw  a  stone 
at  the  "pretty  little  imp",  as  "Oom  John"  calls 
him.  What  man  or  boy,  with  his  feet  on  the  earth, 
would  "hurl"  one!  No,  our  friend  was  writing 
for  the  Press  —  hence,  I  suppose,  this  weakness. 
Here  is  some  more  from  the  same  source : 

He  [the  dog]  seemed  to  say  to  himself,  on  seeing  us, 
"There  come  both  of  them  now,  just  as  I  have  been 
hoping  they  would;  now,  while  they  are  away,  I  will 
run  quickly  over  and  know  what  they  have  got  that  a 
dog  can  eat." 

That  isn't  dog-talk !     It  is  poor  weak  book-talk. 

My  companion  saw  the  dog  get  up  on  our  arrival, 
and  go  quickly  in  the  direction  of  our  camp,  and  he 


HERE  A  LITTLE,  THERE  A  LITTLE    309 

said  something  in  the  cur's  manner  suggested  to  him 
the  object  of  his  departure.  ...  On  cautiously  near- 
ing  the  camp,  the  dog  was  seen  amid  [sic]  the  pails  in 
the  shallow  water  of  the  creek  investigating  them. 

That  was  written  by  a  man  (Mr.  Burroughs) 
who  is  capable  of  writing  good  forcible  English; 
but  compare  it  with  the  language  in  which  millions 
of  plain  Americans  would  tell  the  story,  and  see 
how  feeble  the  printed  English  looks  by  contrast ! 
In  spite  of  the  makers  of  books,  the  plain  people 
speak  with  directness  and  vigor. 

The  naturalist  and  his  friend  were  camping 
and  Ashing.  Here  is  a  fragment  of  their  conver- 
sation (as  reported) : 

"'The  last  that  parleys  with  the  setting  sun,'"  said 
I,  quoting  Wordsworth. 

"That  line  is  almost  Shakespearean,"  said  my  com- 
panion. "It  suggests  that  great  hand,  at  least,  though 
it  has  not  the  grit  and  virility  of  the  more  primitive 
bard.  What  triumph  and  fresh  morning  power  in 
Shakespeare's  lines  that  will  occur  to  us  at  sunrise 
to-morrow !  — 

"'and  jocund  day 
Stands  tiptoe  on  the  misty  mountain  tops,' 

"  or  in  this  :  —  " 

And  so  on.     That  record  is  conventional.     It  is 
out  of  harmony  with  the  situation.     It  is  weak. 


S10  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

I  cannot  think  real  men  talk  so  in  the  woods; 
although  there  is  no  better  place  to  talk  of  the 
poets. 

It  is  but  fair,  in  this  connection,  to  quote  some 
very  different  passages,  in  which  the  same  writer 
speaks  directly  and  forcibly  to  the  reader. 

The  woods  are  rigid  and  tense,  keyed  up  by  the 
frost,  and  resound  like  a  stringed  instrument. 

At  night  I  hear  more  distinctly  the  roar  of  the 
North  Mountain.  In  summer  it  is  a  sort  of  complacent 
purr,  as  the  breezes  stroke  down  its  sides;  but  in 
winter  always  the  same  low,  sullen  growl. 

When  the  nights  are  calm  and  the  moon  full,  I  go 
out  to  gaze  upon  the  wonderful  purity  of  the  moonlight 
and  the  snow.  The  air  is  full  of  latent  fire,  and  the 
cold  warms  me.  .  .  . 

The  world  lies  about  me  in  a  "trance  of  snow." 
The  clouds  are  pearly  and  iridescent  .  .  .  the  ghosts 
of  clouds,  the  indwelling  beauty  freed  from  all  dross. 

Presently  a  fox  barks,  away  up  next  the  mountain. 
...  As  I  listen,  one  answers  him  from  behind  the 
woods  in  the  valley.  What  a  wild  winter  sound,  wild 
and  weird,  up  among  the  ghostly  hills ! 

And  as  the  hermit's  evening  song  goes  up  from  the 
deep  solitude  below  me,  I  experience  that  serene  exal- 
tation of  sentiment  of  which  music,  literature,  and 
religion  are  but  the  faint  types  and  symbols. 

Here  the  naturalist  is  also  poet ;  and  the  lan- 
guage is  well  within  the  proprieties  of  imaginative 


HERE  A  LITTLE,  THERE  A  LITTLE     311 


literature.  I  could  not  find  very  much  fault 
with  it.  In  the  last  passage,  "religion"  seems  to 
mean  religious  ceremonial,  or  ritual.  I  suppose 
that  religion  in  a  more  proper  sense  is  the  highest 
possible  "exaltation  of  sentiment." 

There  are  a  number  of  passages  in  my  collec- 
tion which  I  have  found  it  convenient  to  label 
'Wordy."     To    such    as    these,    especially,    our 
formula  of  inverse  ratio  will  apply. 


One  can  feel  sure  that 
Franklin  would  have  suc- 
ceed d  in  any  part  of  the 
national  life  that  it  might 
have  fallen  to  his  lot  to  take 
part  in.     (Wilson.) 

.  .  .  because  he  knew  so 
well  what  he  was  about 
[Good,  so  far  !]  —  and  knew 
also  that  he  was  succeeding 
in  expressing  his  thoughts  a 
little  better  than  they  could 
have  been  expressed  in  any 
other  and  more  conventional 
way.     (Cooper.) 

We  must  each  of  us  find 
our  own  best  working  hours, 
must  decide  for  ourselves 
whether  we  will  sit  thirty 
hours  at  a  stretch  without 
moving,  and  then  do  nothing 
more  for  a  week,  or  whether 
we  will  accept  the  monotony 


Not  extremely  weak,  but 
certainly  not  forcible.  The 
use  of  "take  part  in",  fol- 
lowing "in  any  part",  adds 
to  the  effect  of  weakness ; 
take  part  in  any  part  is  bad. 

Not  very  weak,  again ; 
but  too  weak  for  exemplary 
"craftsmanship."  It  is  not 
for  me  to  rewrite  the  part 
that  follows  the  dash,  but 
I  am  very  sure  the  author 
could  easily  have  made  it 
much  briefer  and  better. 


Whether  or  whether,  with 
an  extra  whether  thrown  in, 
is  too  much.  It  is  fair  to 
inquire  whether  any  net  loss 
would  result  if  the  whole 
were  condensed : 

Each  must  decide  for  him- 
self   whether    to    sit    thirty 


312 


WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 


of  systematic  daily  effort 
from  breakfast  until  lunch- 
eon, day  in  and  day  out, 
whether  we  feel  like  it  or  not. 
(Cooper.) 

Both  are  cosmic  processes ; 
both  are  ethical  processes; 
both  are  both  cosmic  and 
ethical  processes.  (Drum- 
mond.) 

It  is  difficult  to  secure  a 
successful  organization  of 
men  into  the  simplest  trades 
organization  without  an  ap- 
peal to  the  most  abstract 
principles.     (Miss   Addams.) 

Miss  Cobbe  .  .  .  herself 
sets  vigorously  about  a  posi- 
tive reconstruction  of  religion, 
about  making  a  religion  of 
the  future  out  of  hand,  or  at 
least  setting  about  making  it. 
(Arnold.) 


hours  at  a  stretch,  and  then 
do  nothing  for  a  week,  or  to 
work  regularly,  resolutely, 
day  after  day. 


In  the  first  two  state- 
ments, all  is  said.  Why  not 
bury  the  rest,  with  the 
epitaph  Cui  Bono  ? 


Does  this  mean  anything 
more  than  that  it  is  hard  to 
effect  the  simplest  trades  organ- 
ization, etc.  ?  If  so,  there 
is  an  easy  and  forcible  way 
to  express  the  meaning. 

I  take  it  Arnold  means  to 
be  humorous  here,  as  well 
as  gently  satirical.  I  think 
he  succeeds  in  overdoing  his 
own  style,  and  making  it 
weak. 


And  further,  the  comprehension  of  the  bearings  of 
one  science  on  another,  and  the  use  of  each  to  each, 
and  the  location  and  limitation  and  adjustment  and 
due  appreciation  of  them  all,  one  with  another,  this 
belongs,  I  conceive,  to  a  sort  of  science  distinct  from 
all  of  them,  and  in  some  sense  a  science  of  sciences, 
which  is  my  own  conception  of  what  is  meant  by 
Philosophy,  in  the  true  sense  of  the  word,  and  of  a 
philosophical  habit  of  mind,  and  which  in  these  dis- 
courses I  shall  call  by  that  name.  (Newman.) 


HERE  A  LITTLE,  THERE  A  LITTLE    313 

A  sentence  so  long  and  wordy  as  this,  if  used 
at  all,  should  be  worked  out  patiently  to  per- 
fection of  form,  to  lucidity,  to  logical  correct- 
ness. Because  it  is  not  so  wrought  out,  this 
sentence  is  lacking  in  both  ease  and  force.  Note 
that  "a  science  of  sciences"  is  said  to  be  a  "con- 
ception of  what  is  meant  by  Philosophy  .  .  .  and 
of  a  philosophical  habit  of  mind."  How  "science 
of  sciences"  can  be  "a  conception"  of  two  things 
so  different  as  "philosophy"  (which  he  evidently 
means  is  scientia  scientiarum)  and  "a  philosophical 
habit  of  mind"  (which  is  not  a  science  at  all), 
is  too  hard  a  question  for  me.  The  reference  in 
"that  name"  is  not  hard  to  determine;  but  the 
demonstrative  is  so  used  as  to  violate  the  prin- 
ciple of  formal  clearness.  Why  could  he  not 
have  said,  which  in  these  discourses  I  shall  call 
Philosophy  ? 


XXXIX 

THE  LARGER  UNIT 

One  sentence  after  another.  Every  writing, 
from  the  little  article  or  essay  to  the  great  history 
in  many  volumes,  is  a  sequence  of  sentences, 
grouped  as  they  may  be  into  paragrarjhs^^chapters, 
and  so  on.  He  that  in  the  sentence  has  achieved 
correctness,  clearness,  ease,  and  force  has  gone 
far  towards  achieving  the  same  qualities  in  -the 
largerjmiL__J±-costs  more  arduous  effort  to  make  < 
sure  that  the  parts  of  the  whole  work  are  logically 
related  and  connected;  that  the  whole  course  of 
thought  is  made  as  easy  as  in  the  nature  of  the 
case  it  can  be,  and  as  agreeable  as  lightness  of 
touch,  pleasing  variety,  apt  illustration^  and 
skilful  grouping  and  adaptation  of  parts  can  make 
it;  that  the  effectiveness  of  the  whole  is  raised 
to  the  highest  power  by  brevity,  directness,  rigid 
exehisiorTof  all  th^fjioes  not  contribute  to  j£e 
effect^jsought  for,  and  judicious  arrangement  of 

314 


THE  LARGER  UNIT  315 

the  parts  with  a  viewto  climax  in  interest,  in 
illumination  of  the  subject,  and  in  impressiveness. 
/<A.ll  tnis,  1  say,  is  harder  work  than  tinkerigg  sen- 
tencesT^But  the  same  principles  apply  to  it,  and 
a   masTerof   sentences   who   is   consistent   with 


himself  and  has  the  necessary  strength  of_  mind 
will  be  master  all  along  the  line.  This  book 
makes  no  attempt  to  deal  systematically  with 
large  questions  of  construction.  Yet  a  few  obiter 
dicta  may  not  be  without  use. 

It  was  Margaret  Fuller,  perhaps,  that  spoke  of 
reading  with  one's  fingers.  "Rip  open  the  leaves 
of  a  book,"  said  the  old  "Prexy  ",  "and  get  the 
heart  out  of  it!"  Scholars  and  specialists  must 
often  treat  books  in  this  way ;  sometimes  because 
they  are  not  real  books  but  works  of  reference, 
sometimes  because  they  are  not  worth  reading 
through,  sometimes  for  other  and  special  reasons. 
But  who  that  writes  with  serious  purpose  or  in 
a  spirit  of  craftsmanship  would  be  content  to 
have  his  book  squeezed  dry  (to  change  the  figure) 
by  the  general  reader  and  flung  away !  The  real 
books  will  bear  reading  through ;  the  books  that 
grip  the  reader  will  not  let  go  until  the  last  leaf 
be  turned;  the  great  ones  will  get  themselves 
read  over  and  over  again. 


316  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

The  day  of  ponderous  learned  folios  and  of 
interminable  stories  has  gone  by ;  but  publishers, 
I  suppose,  do  not  look  with  favor  upon  small 
books,  unless,  perhaps,  they  will  bear  expanding 
with  half-tones,  thick  paper,  leads,  large  type, 
and  blank  leaves  to  the  dimensions  and  preten- 
sions that  warrant  certain  customary  prices. 
It  ouffht  to  come  about,  somehow,  that  no  writer 
should  be  under  any  external  temptation  or 
constraint  to  stretch  his  work  out  thin.  Force 
rather  than  fulness  should  be  the  peremptory 
demand  of  the  reading  public.^  There  are  sub- 
jects, of  course,  which  cannot  be  adequately 
treated  without  generous  space ;  but  in  the 
great  majority  of  cases  the  public  may  fairly  ask 
for  the  results  of  special  studies  rather  than  the 
tedious  process;  for  salient  facts,  principles, 
conclusions  established  by  elimination ;  for  clear 
and  forcible  reasoning,  exposition,  or  whatever, 
dealing  with  no  more  material  than  can  be  handled 
by  the  reader  with  reasonable  expenditure  of 
time  and  strength.  Where  one  reader  skilfully 
tears  out  the  heart  of  a  book,  twenty  read  super- 
ficially. With  books  written  as  they  should  be, 
the  excuse  for  dissipating  one's  energies  in  cursory 
reading  would  largely  disappear. 


THE    LARGER  UNIT  317 

The  enormous  intellectual  appetite  of  a  Glad- 
stone or  a  Macaulay  is  the  rare  exception.  It 
belonged,  moreover,  to  an  earlier  day,  to  a  time 
before  the  swift  changes  of  the  last  half-century 
had  been  accomplished  and  the  field  of  knowledge 
had  perforce  been  minutely  divided  among  spe- 
cialists. The  American  mind,  probably,  is  less 
adapted  than  the  British  to  omnivorous  scholar- 
ship, and  must  and  will  do  its  work  with  greater 
concentration  and  a  lighter  touch.  And  it  is 
interesting  to  reflect  how  little  mark  a  man  like 
Gladstone  has  made  as  a  writer.  Already  — 
who  reads  a  page  of  Gladstone  ? 

We  may  well  doubt  whether  there  is  any  great 
future  for  the  long  and  leisurely  novel  of  which 
the  past  has  given  us  so  many  examples.  Dick- 
ens wears  well,  but  it  is,  I  believe,  in  spite  of  his 
verbal  exuberance.  Writers  like  Miss  Murfree, 
inspired  by  the  incommunicable  and  inexpres- 
sible beauty  of  natural  scenery,  toil  to  carry  the 
reader  with  them  in  their  long  descriptions.  If 
their  fiction  be  as  powerful  as  hers,  the  reader 
toils  too  —  or  skips.  If  a  writer  would  take  the 
reader  by  his  buttonhole,  or  hold  him  as  the 
Ancient  Mariner  holds  the  Wedding  Guest,  the 
essay  form  is  available,  in  which  the  inclusive 


318  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

unit  is  happily  restricted  and  the  direct  personal 
method  may  be  taken  as  a  matter  of  course.  In 
the  novel,  description  or  discursive  talk  should  be 
severely  held  to  its  proper  limits  and  subordina- 
tion. As  in  the  drama,  so  here,  what  the  char- 
acters say  and  do  is  what  counts.  In  one  of 
Donald  G.  Mitchell's  books  there  is  a  description 
of  a  summer  thunder-storm.  As  the  black  cloud 
rises  in  the  west,  the  vertical  lightning-flashes 
are  compared  to  swift-working  golden  ropes  rais- 
ing it  to  the  zenith,  and  the  thunder  to  the  rumble 
of  the  pulleys.  It  matters  not  whether  the  simile 
is  as  good  as  it  seemed  to  me  now  many  years 
ago;  it  served  its  purpose,  and  lodged  itself  per- 
manently in  my  memory.  If  hard  work  or  happy 
inspiration  can  with  a  few  irresistible  words 
master  the  reader's  imagination,  so  that  he  reads 
the  truth  as  "by  flashes  of  lightning  ",  description 
is  doing  its  perfect  work.  If  the  play  of  Holmes's 
wit,  or  a  quick  glow  as  of  Lowell's  humor  can 
illuminate  a  story  without  retarding  it,  the  reader's 
patience  is  not  tried  —  his  sympathy  is  won. 

Speaking  of  fiction :  its  effectiveness  depends 
largely  upon  the  illusion  produced.  The  reader 
cannot  in  the  full  sense  believe  that  which  he 
knows  is  not  true,  but  if  the  probabilities  and 


THE  LARGER   UNIT  319 

possibilities  are  not  too  much  disregarded  he  can 

feel  as  if  it  were  true.     In  Mr.  Crawford's  "Paul 

Patoff  ",  the  story  is  told  by  one  of  the  characters 

in  it  —  Paul  Griggs.     Part  of  it  has  to  do  with 

events  in   which  he  was  an  actor,   or  at  least 

was  present  to  see  and  hear  for  himself ;    part  of 

the  narrative  tells  of  things  which  in  their  full 

detail  Griggs  could  not  have  known.     Whatever 

may  be  gained  by  this  method,  I  believe  much  is 

lost.     So  in  "The  Old  Curiosity  Shop"  the  first 

three  chapters  are  supposed  to  be  written  from 

first-hand    knowledge    by    "an    old    man"    who 

himself   makes   the   acquaintance  of   the  leading 

characters  and  introduces   them   to   the   reader; 

then,  announcing  the  change,  he  continues  the 

story  without  any  pretence  of  having  been  able 

to  know  in  his  own  person  the  details  which  he 

so  fully  sets  forth.     In   other   words,    he   is   for 

a  while  one  of   the  dramatis  personce,  and  then 

becomes  the  dramatist,  frankly  putting  on  the 

stage  the  figments  of  the  author's  imagination. 

With  such  a  method,  compare  that  of  one  of  the 

most   effective   stories  man  ever   told  —  Defoe's 

"Robinson  Crusoe."     With  the  two  novels  first 

mentioned  compare  even  "A  Tale  of  Two  Cities  ", 

which,  once  read,  one  wants  to  read  over  every 


320  WORKMANSHIP  IN  WORDS 

two  or  three  years  for  the  rest  of  his  life.  We 
have  thus  seen  one  way  in  which  Force  is  related 
to  Unity. 

What  I  may  call  net  effectiveness  is  greatly 
increased  by  avoidance  of  the  faults  that  weaken 
discourse.  V  Thej)ositive  quality  of  inherent  force, 
in  sentences  or  in  books,  depends  greatly  on  convic- 
tion and  force  of  character;  and  these,  in  turn, 
upon  the  sum  of  hard  work  and  strenuous  living 
that  is  behind  the  utterance  —  upon  the  dynamics 
of  a  lifetime.  Lincoln  at  Cooper  Union  made  the 
platform  historic  from  which  he  spoke,  and  made 
known  to  the  Nation  the  literally  uncouth  West- 
erner who  was  destined  to  maintain  its  integrity. 
The  great  speech  did  its  work  because  the  speaker 
had  thought  so  long  and  strenuously  upon  his 
subject,  and  meanwhile  had  toiled  at  the  art  of 
expression  until  from  the  pitiful  crudities  of  his 
youth  he  had  come  near  to  that  classic  straight- 
forwardness, simplicity,  and  force  which  later 
gave  lonely  distinction  to  his  masterpieces.  Uni- 
form propriety  in  detail  he  never  attained,  and 
no  wonder ;  but  if  our  polished  writers  will  turn 
out  English  like  the  letter  to  Greeley,  the  letter 
to  Hooker,  the  Bixby  letter,  we  may  wink  at 
the  minor  blemishes  in  which  their  work  abounds. 


THE  LARGER  UNIT  321 

Meanwhile  if  we  cannot  be  great  we  can  at  least 
be  careful,  and  give  our  work  the  force  which 
comes  from  the  absence  of  petty  faults  that  are 
wholly  needless. 

Force  is  seen  in  widely  differing  compositions, 
g-eat  and  little:  in  trifles  like  Charles  Dudley 
Warner's  record  of  the  cat  Calvin  —  "We  never 
familiarly  called  him  John  " ;  in  President  Eliot's 
account  of  John  Gilley;  in  Grant's  Memoirs, 
so  like  the  man;  in  Webster's  massive  speeches; 
in  the  close  of  Woodrow  Wilson's  inaugural;  in 
the  parables  of  the  New  Testament;  in  the 
twenty-third  Psalm.  Its  ideal  condition  is  per- 
fect adaptation  of  the  composition  to  the  end  in 
view.  Adaptation  of  means  to  ends  is  within  the 
power  of  every  workman  who  has  the  spirit  of 
Workmanship. 


INDEX  OF  PROPER  NAMES 


Abbott's  Shakespearian  Gram- 
mar, 123. 

Adams,  Brooks,  44. 

Addams,  Jane,  74,  75,  102,  113, 
154,  195,  211,  293,  312. 

Addison,  Joseph,  62,  80. 

Alden,  Henry  M.,  3,  4,  50,  114, 
173,  207,  234. 

Aldrich,  Thomas  Bailey,  35,  76, 
114,  116,  160,  181,  240,  249, 
297,  301,  304. 

Allen,  James  Lane,  62,  160,  172, 
240,  269. 

Arnold,  Matthew,  29,  32,  60,  62, 
73,  74,  79,  89,  91,  96,  101, 
105,  111,  116,  177,  250,  258, 
290,  292,  299,  312. 

As  You  Like  It,  128. 

Atlantic  Monthly,  46,  132. 

Avebury,  Lord  (Sir  John  Lub- 
bock), 73. 

Bacon,  Francis,  62. 
Bagehot,  Waller,  43,  50. 
Barrie,  James  M.,  119. 
Bates,  Katharine  Lee,  46,  137. 
Bennett,  Arnold,  100. 
Benson,  Arthur  Christopher,  29, 

44, 52,  62, 84,  93, 105, 180,  190, 

212,  263,  292. 
Bible,  90,  91,  124,  151,  321. 
Bigelow,  Poultney,  43. 


Biglow  Papers,  277. 

Birrell,  Augustine,  56,  61,   106, 

107,  133,  203,  293. 
Black,  William,  43,  61,  99,  292. 
"B.  L.  TV',  see  Taylor. 
Brooke,  Stopford,  99,  137. 
Brooks,  John  Graham,  32, 40, 81, 

84,  86,  102,  103,  133,  147,  153, 
183,  196,  220,  242,  249,  290, 
293. 

Browning,  Robert,  121. 
Bryant,  William  Cullen,  137. 
Buffon,  Georges  L.  L.,  4. 
Burroughs,  John,  94,   196,   197, 
289,  308,  310. 

Calkins,  Mary  Whiton,  186. 
Carlyle,  Thomas,  53,  62,  86. 
Century  Magazine,  83. 
Chaucer,  Geoffrey,  55. 
Chesterton,  Gilbert  K.,  62,  107, 

109,   112,  169,  184,  192,   196, 

263,  806. 
Churchill,   Winston,  29,  30,  43, 

85,  89,  111,  155,  190,195,213, 
217,  301. 

Churchman.  198. 
Clemens,  Samuel  L.,  18. 
Clifford,  William  K..  171. 
Coe,   George   A.,  92,   111,   IK!. 

153,  174,  196,  205,  292,  301, 

304. 


323 


324 


INDEX  OF  PROPER  NAMES 


Comedy  of  Errors,  123. 
Commons,  John  R.,  213. 
Congregationalist,  33. 
Cooper,  Frederic  T.,  10,  59,  83, 

109,  137,  147,  184,  202,  203, 

210,  211,  248,  306,  311. 
Cooper,    James    Fenimore,    49, 

275-277. 
Correct  English,  50. 
Cosmopolitan,  116. 
Craddock,    Charles   Egbert,   see 

Murfree. 
Crawford,  F.  Marion,  34,  48,  62, 

89,  91,  96,  116,  147,  160,  173, 

252,  319. 
Crothers,  Samuel  McChord,  40, 

62,  84,  95. 
Cymbeline,  128. 

Dana,  Richard  H.,  39,  43,  53, 
70,  73,  86,  98,  180,  239. 

Defoe,  Daniel,  319. 

Deland,  Mrs.  Margaret,  97, 
302. 

De   Quincey,    Thomas,    15,    62, 

63,  86. 

Dickens,  Charles,  77,  317,  319. 
Dole,  Charles  F.,  62. 
Drummond,  Henry,  79,  192,  298, 
312. 

Eliot,    Charles    W.,    ix,    146, 

159,  177,  321. 
Emerson,  Ralph  Waldo,  62. 
Evans,  William  A.,  83. 
Evening  Post,  137. 

Fernald,  James  C,  113. 
Fiske,  John,  31,  62,  77,  97. 
Flaubert,  Gustave,  248,  253. 
Foote,  Mrs.  Mary  Hallock,  97, 
99,  180. 


Fuller,   Henry  B.,  62,  93,   105, 
121,  136. 

Galsworthy,  John,  44,  61,  112. 

Genung,  John  F.,  75. 

Gilder,  Richard  Watson,  37,  50, 

61,  86,  209,  210,  267. 
Gilman,  Nicholas  Payne,  189. 
Gladstone,  William  E.,  317. 
Goldsmith,  Oliver,  8,  55. 
Grant,  Ulysses  S.,  321. 
Griffis,  William  Elliot,  77. 

Hadlet,  Arthur  Twining,  94, 

155,  251,  289. 
Hale,  Edward  Everett,  97. 
Hall,  Thomas  C,  52,  213,  217, 

267,  301. 
Hamlet,  5,  81,  125,  151. 
Hardy,  Thomas,  3,  39,  76,  78, 

80,  97,  146,  204,  224,  234,  258, 

265,  293. 
Harper's  Magazine,  120,  172. 
Harpers  Weekly,  31,  157. 
Harrison,  Frederic,  224-227. 
Hawkins,    Anthony    Hope,    see 

Hope. 
Hewlett,  Maurice  H.,  278. 
Higginson,  Thomas  Wentworth, 

41,  49,  81,  160,  291. 
Hill,  Adams  Sherman,  17,  55,  92, 

145,  231,  238,  240. 
Hill,  David  Jayne,  38,  57,  193, 

220. 
Hoar,  George  F.,  102. 
Holmes,  John  Haynes,  19,  185, 

217,  264,  306. 
Holmes,  Oliver  Wendell,  137. 
Hope,  Anthony,  180,  223,  302. 
Howells,  William  D.,  54,  86,  89, 

91,    100,    110,    112,    172,    179, 

252,  296. 
Hudson,  Henry  N.,  128. 


INDEX  OF  PROPER  NAMES 


325 


Ian  Maclaken,  see  Watson. 
Independent,  106,  114,  137,  170, 

190,  195,  204. 
International  Dictionary,  55. 

James,  Henry,  274. 

Tames,  William,  29,  33,  59,  61, 
97,  106,  132,  153,  171,  186, 
211,  213,  221,  240,  259,  264. 

Jevons,  William  S.,  99,  118. 

Jewett,  Sarah  Orne,  175,  178, 
236,  244. 

Johnson,  Samuel,  295. 

Julius  Caesar,  127. 

Kingsley,  Charles,  77. 
Kirkup,  Thomas,  103. 

Ladies7  Home  Journal,  43. 

Lamb,  Charles,  62,  63. 

Landor,  Walter  Savage,  122. 

Lang,  Andrew,  60,  113,  239, 
253. 

Lanier,  Sidney,  254. 

Lear,  128. 

Leonard,  Mary  H.,  201. 

Life,  53,  76. 

Lincoln,  Abraham,  320. 

Longfellow,  Henry  W.,  10,  154. 

Lounsbury,  Thomas  R.,  12,  15, 
23,  25,  26,  29,  58,  60,  70,  86, 
97,  107,  108,  120,  121,  122, 
157,  168,  175,  191,  197,  200, 
218,  239,  249,  260,  306. 

Lowell,  James  Russell,  19,  34, 
36,  47,  58,  92,  96,  100,  159, 
160,  172,  178,  185,  186,  203, 
222,  223,  240,  252,  253,  256, 
277,  302. 

Lubbock,  Sir  John,  see  Avebtjry. 

Mabie,  Hamilton  W.,  116,  239, 
264. 


Macaulay,    Thomas   Babington, 

62,  63,  87. 
Maclaren,  Ian,  see  Watson. 
Macy,  Jesse,  97. 
Mahan,  Alfred   T.,  38,  44,  107, 

191. 
Mark  Twain,  see  Clemens. 
Marsh,  George  P.,  155. 
Masefield,   John,   40,    121,    168, 

210. 
Matthews,  Brander,  58,  92,  118, 

153,  169,  192,  199,  200,  212, 

263,  291. 
McCarthy,  Justin,  62,  90,  93. 
McMaster,  John  Bach,  112,  155, 

180. 
Merchant  of  Venice,  49. 
Meredith,  George,  41,  53,  82,  89, 

98,   101,   102,    114,   131,   147, 

211,  223,  224,  234,  240,  243. 
Milton,  John,  50,  55. 
Mitchell,  Donald  G.,  318. 
More,  Paul  Elmer,  34,  47,  98. 
Morse,  John  T.,  Jr.,  48,  53,  81, 

114,  116,  117,  118,  173,  177, 

180,  264,  305. 
Muir,  John,  32,  35,  95,  148,  149, 

156,  190,  252,  286. 
Murfree,  Mary  N.,  317. 
Murray's  New  English  Diction- 
ary, 105. 

Newman,  John  Henry,  3,  5,  11, 
29,  51,  61,  72,  86,  90,  91,  93, 
101,  105,  107,  131,  136,  152, 
169,  184,  197,  250,  258,  266, 
290,  297,  312. 

North  American  Review,  206. 

Norton,  Charles  Eliot,  50. 

O'Connell,  William  H.,  117. 
Old  Curiosity  Shop,  319. 
Othello,  127. 


326 


INDEX  OF  PROPER  NAMES 


Outlook,  30,  33,  35,  91,  100,  102,  Sheldon,  Charles  M.,  266. 

195>  306-  Slosson,   Mrs.   Annie  Trumbull, 

PT34ET80S  220GlLBERT'   34"   91>  Sm^>  F-  Hopkinson,  34,  53, 186. 

Parke'r,  Theodore,  49.  St^f.   ^1°^'    ™'    ™' 

Pater,  Walter,  6,  27,  61,  148,  169,  gj^  1**£Jj  ^ 

208    241    244    2*52    2Qq    ^no  »«-eaa,  vv imam  i.,  ius,  211. 

JJ         '     *4'  252'  293'  300'  Stephen,  Leslie,  99,  173,  264. 

Perry,'  Bliss,  50,  62,  89,  97.  160,  ^ZT^  SJ"*  ^^  6'  59' 
252  302 

Quiller-Couch,  Sir  Arthur  T.,  Sw?  '•  Jonathan,  62. 

116  Swinburne,     Algernon     Charles, 

Quintilian,  142.  62»  219>  2™- 

Raleigh,    Professor   Walter,  Taft,  William  Howard,  95. 

62,  114,  137,  146.  Taylor,  Bert  Leston,  158,  185. 

Rauschenbusch,  Walter,  58,  103,  Thackeray,  William  Makepeace, 

106,  149,   156,  170,  251,  269,  234. 

28S,  301,  304.  Thoreau,  Henry  D.,  86. 

Repplier,  Agnes,  73.  Times,  London,  129. 

Rice,  Mrs.  Alice  Hegan,  278.  Tribune,  Chicago,  105,  129,  306. 

Riggs,  Mrs.  George  C,  see  Wig-  Tribune,  New-York,  112. 

gin.  Trollope,  Anthony,  249. 

Rolfe,  William  J.,  127.  Twelfth  Night,  127. 
Roosevelt,  Theodore,  30,  35,  37, 

69,   115,   117,   120,   155,   174,  Van  Dyke,  Henry,  61,  84,  120, 

190,  236,  291,  302.  154,  251,  264,  291. 
Root,  Elihu,  113. 

Royce,  Josiah,  305.  Ward,  Mrs.  Elizabeth  Stuart 

Ruskin,  John,  31,  61,  62,  70,  73,  Phelps,  44,  99,  172,  242,  254, 

86,  111,  167,  212.  264,  265. 

Ward,   Mrs.    Humphry,   44,   61, 

Santayana,  George,  185.  74,  89,  169,  179,  305. 

Scribners  Magazine,  79,  97.  Warner,  Charles  Dudley,  321. 

Scudder,  Vida  D.,  44,  59,  146,  Washington,  Booker  T.,  190. 

157,  173,  239.  Watson,  John,  95. 

Seeley,  Sir  John  R.,  265.  Webster,  Daniel,  321. 

Shaftesbury,  Lord,  243.  Wells,    Herbert    G.,    102,    148, 

Shakspere,  William,  49,  151,  208.  266. 

Shaler,  Nathaniel  S.,  34,  76,  103,  Wharton,   Mrs.    Edith,   47,   62, 

114,  115,  239,  264.  115,  117. 


INDEX  OF  PROPER  NAMES  327 

White,  Arnold,  49.  Woodberry,  George  E.,  46,  84, 

Wiggin,  Kate  Douglas,  62,  305.  102,  147,  171,  185,  195,  210, 

Wilson,   Woodrow,   34,   37,   89,  218,  266. 

in,  117,  170,  209,  287,  291,  Woodbridge,  Elizabeth,  46. 

3il,  321.  Woods,  Robert  A.,  84. 

Winter,  William,  37.  World,  New-York,  45,  69,  179. 


GENERAL  INDEX 


Abbreviated      Forms      (collo- 
quial), 274. 
Abridged  clause,  35;    participle 

with  sense  of,  38. 
Abridged  expressions  artificial,  37. 
Abridgments,    My,    35-42.     See 

Grammatical  Propriety. 
Agreement.     See  Concord. 
Ambiguity,  151,  156,  160. 
Aorist  (preterit)   for  pluperfect, 

91. 
Art  —  "  mere  artist ",  11. 
as  for  so,  97,  250,  291. 
as  if,  present  with,  92. 
Attraction,  disagreement  by,  30, 

31. 
Automatic  Sentence,  The,  174- 

181.     See  Clearness. 
Awkward     Squad,     The,     256- 

271.     Sec  Ease. 

Bad  Practice,  288-294.  See 
Force. 

because  and  quod,  84. 

"Book-talk",  308. 

both  alike,  114. 

both  .  .  .  and,  etc.,  55-67.  See 
Grammatical  Propriety  (cor- 
respondents). 

both  (of  more  than  two),  55. 

Cadences,  271. 

Causal  clause  substantive,  83. 


"Chaos",  220. 

Character  and  force,  320. 

Clearness,  141-227.  Introduc- 
tory, 141-144 :  what  it  re- 
quires, 142,  related  to  correct- 
ness, ease,  and  force,  144; 
punctuation  and  clearness, 
145-150;  formal  clearness  (I), 
151-161;  (II),  only,  162-167; 
the  squinting  construction, 
168-173;  the  automatic  sen- 
tence, 174-181:  negative  sub- 
ject, ill-matched  predicates, 
174,  how  avoided,  176;  the 
crazy  sentence,  182-188:  iden- 
tification of  things  not  the 
same;  more  insanity,  189- 
198:  confusion,  189,  necessary 
words  omitted,  190,  needless 
words  inserted,  192,  "figure  of 
speech",  193;  it,  199-207: 
confusion  as  to  antecedent; 
other  pronouns,  208-214:  per- 
sonal, 208,  relative,  212  (such, 
so,  other,  212);  unclassified 
confusions,  215-227:  courtesy 
and  justice  to  readers,  215  (cf. 
246). 

Clumsiness,  Two  Forms  of,  236- 
240.     See  Ease. 

Comma  between  adjective  and 
substantive,  132,  242. 


329 


S30 


GENERAL  INDEX 


Comparison  and  Coordination, 
49-54.  See  Grammatical 
Propriety. 

Comparisons  are  Odorous,  43- 
48.  See  Grammatical  Pro- 
priety. 

Complementary  infinitive,  89. 

Compounds,  134. 

Concerning  Form,  8-13.  See 
Introductory  Chapters. 

Concord,  28-34.  See  Gram- 
matical Propriety. 

Conditional  sentences,  mixed 
forms,  92. 

Confusions,  Unclassified,  215- 
227.     See  Clearness. 

Coordination,  Comparison  and, 
49-54.  See  Grammatical 
Propriety. 

Correspondents,  55-67.  See 
Grammatical  Propriety. 

Courtesy  to  readers,  215,  246. 

Crazy  Sentence,  The,  182-188. 
See  Clearness. 

"  Cut  it ",  304. 

Derivation,  261,  306. 

Dialect  spelling,  277. 

dilapidation,  111. 

Disagreement  by  attraction,  30, 
31. 

Dry  as  Dust,  23-27.  See  Gram- 
matical Propriety. 

Ease,  231-279.  Preliminary, 
231-235:  defined,  231,  sources 
of,  231,  what  it  requires  and 
forbids,  233;  two  forms  of 
clumsiness,  236-240:  split  in- 
finitive, 236,  "straddle",  238; 
punctuation  and  ease,  241- 
247;  comma  between  adjective 


and  substantive,  242  (cf.  132), 
"jerk,  jolt,  and  clutter",  243, 
courtesy  to  readers,  246;  eu- 
phony, 248-255 :  sibilation, 
249,  so  and  as,  250,  harsh 
combinations,  252;  the  awk- 
ward squad  (I),  256-262;  (II), 
263-271:  repetitions,  263,  nest- 
of -boxes,  268,  pairs,  270;  for- 
mality and  good  form,  272-279: 
editorial  we,  273,  abbreviated 
forms,  274,  reporting  conver- 
sation, 275,  dialect  spelling, 
277. 

Ease  and  prolixity,  81. 

Emphatic  modifier  misused, 
178. 

Euphony,  248-255.    See  Ease. 

"Figure  of  Speech",  193. 

find,  with  pure  infinitive,  89, 
90. 

Finish,  objections  to,  64. 

first  two,  two  first,  108. 

Force,  283-321.  Good  theory, 
283-287:  definition,  283,  for- 
mulas, 284,  the  disagreeable, 
285,  examples  of  force,  286; 
bad  practice,  288-294 :  when  for 
and  then,  289,  repetition,  289, 
that,  292,  which,  293,  revision, 
294;  line  upon  line,  pre- 
cept upon  precept,  295-303: 
"models",  295,  realism,  297; 
here  a  little  and  there  a  little, 
304-313:  "cut  it",  304,  tau- 
tology, 305,  "book-talk",  308, 
examples  of  force,  310, 
"wordy  ",  311;  the  larger  unit, 
314-321 :  the  small  book,  316, 
restraint  in  description  etc., 
317,  illusion,  318,  character 
and  force,  320. 


GENERAL  INDEX 


331 


Force,  formulas  for,  81,  284. 
Formal  Clearness   (I),   151-161. 

See  Clearness. 
Formal  Clearness  (II),  Only,  162- 

167.     See  Cleakness. 
Form,    Concerning,    8-13.     See 

Introductory  Chapters. 

Formality  and  Good  Form,  272- 

279.     See  Ease. 
Freedom  of  statement,   limited, 

19. 

Gerund,   Construction   with, 
85. 

Good  Form,  Formality  and,  272- 
279.     .See  Ease. 

Good  manners  of  style,  215, 
246. 

Good  Theory,  283-287.  See 
Force. 

Grammatical  Propriety,  23-137. 
Dry  as  dust,  23-27:  grammar 
and  usage,  23,  grammar,  con- 
ventions of,  24,  principles  of, 
25;  concord,  28-34:  neither, 
plural  verb,  29,  disagreement 
by  attraction,  30,  pronoun  and 
antecedent,  32;  my  abridg- 
ments, 35-42 :  abridged  clause, 
35,  participle  with  sense  of 
abridged  clause,  38;  compari- 
sons are  odorous.  13  18;  com- 
parison and  coordination,  49- 
54:  illogical  comparisons,  49, 
comparison  and  correspond- 
ence, 51,  coordination  and 
correspondence,  51,  inelegant 
coordination,  53;  correspond- 
ents, 55-67:  without  coordi- 
nation, 56,  how  used  by  great 
essayists,  62,  normal  use,  63, 
objections,  64,  conclusions,  66; 


the  pronoun,  68-82:  with  neg- 
ative antecedent,  69,  relative, 
74,  "whom  nominative",  76, 
"who  objective",  77,  what,  79, 
that  restrictive,  80  ;  some 
matters  of  syntax,  83-95: 
causal  clause  substantive,  83, 
gerund  in  ing,  85,  comple- 
mentary infinitive,  89,  tenses 
(and  modes),  90  ;  misused 
particles,  96-103  :  again,  alone, 
and  ("try  and"),  96,  as,  be- 
tween, 97,  from,  into,  98,  like, 
most,  neither,  nor,  or,  99,  of, 
only,  previously,  100,  so,  still, 
than,  101,  that,  102,  till,  to, 
upon,  103  ;  misused  words  in 
general,  104-118  :  (104-113) 
able,  aggravate,  another,  apt, 
105,  attempt,  both,  comprise, 
either,  106,  expect,  expedition, 
fancy,  feel,  107,  first  ("two 
first"),  108,  got,  109,  home,  110, 
latter,  loan,  look,  mean,  more 
or  less,  point,  111,  regard,  re- 
sult, seem,  substitute,  the,  112, 
want,  watch,  way  (for  away), 
uitness,  113,  (114-118)  a, 
affect,  aggravate,  avail,  avoca- 
tion, blame,  both,  114,  butcher, 
cheap,  demean,  cither,  feel,  115, 
first  ("two  first"),  got,  im- 
possible, incapable,  inveigle, 
miss,  phenomena,  116,  point, 
popular,  possess,  problem  (the- 
orem?), seem,  117.  team,  whole, 
wrestle,  118  ;  shall  and  will, 
119-130  :  proper  use,  119,  in 
Shakspere's  time,  122,  shoidd 
an.!  uould,  120,  121,  125, 
1  .'?,  128;  punctuation.  131- 
1:57:  comma,  131,  hyphen,  134, 
quotation-marks,  135. 


332 


GENERAL  INDEX 


Had  better,  122. 
"he  having",  267. 
Here  a  Little  and  There  a  Little, 

304-313.     See  Force. 
Hyphen-compounds,  134. 

Identification,  182-188. 

Illusion  in  fiction,  318. 

Imperfect  for  pluperfect,  91. 

Infinitive,  split,  236. 

Insanity,  More,  189-198.  See 
Clearness. 

Introductory  (to  clearness),  141- 
144.     See  Clearness. 

Introductory  Chapters,  3-20. 
Preliminary,  3-7:  "slipshod 
writing",  3,  style,  4,  words, 
importance  of,  5;  concerning 
form,  8-13:  journalistic  writ- 
ing, 8,  literature  an  art,  11, 
style,  how  regarded,  12;  what 
the  play  treats  on,  14-16; 
truth,  17-20. 

It,  199-207.     See  Clearness. 

it,  misused,  73. 

Language  affected  by  "individ- 
ual efforts  ",  129. 

Larger  Unit,  The,  314-321.  See 
Force. 

like  for  as,  99,  170. 

Line  upon  Line,  Precept  upon 
Precept,  295-303.     See  Force. 

listen  to  with  infinitive,  89. 

Literature  greatest  of  arts,  6. 

look  with  predicate  noun,  76. 

look  at  with  infinitive,  89. 

Make  with  Participle,  89. 
mark  with  infinitive,  89. 
Merchant  of  Venice,  49. 
"  Minor  moralities  ",  4. 
Misused  Particles,  96-103.     See 
Grammatical  Propriety. 


Misused  Words  in  General,  104- 
118.  See  Grammatical  Pro- 
priety. 

"Models",  295. 

More  Insanity,  189-198.  See 
Clearness. 

My  Abridgments,  35-42.  See 
Grammatical  Propriety. 

Negative  Subject,  ill-matched 

predicates,  174. 
neither  with  plural,  29. 
Nest-of-boxes,  268. 

Only,  place  of,  162-167. 
or  with  plural,  30. 
Other  Pronouns,   208-214.     See 
Clearness. 

Pairs,  270. 

Participle       (predicate)       unat- 
tached, 38. 
Particles,  Misused,  96-103.     See 

Grammatical  Propriety. 
Pedantry,  15. 
Preliminary  (to  Ease),  231-235. 

See  Ease. 
Preliminary    (in    general),    3-7. 

See  Introductory  Chapters. 
Private  judgment,  12,  26. 
Pronoun,      The,      68-82.       See 

Grammatical  Propriety. 
Pronoun  and  antecedent,  32. 
Pronouns,  Other  (than  it),  208- 

214.     See  Clearness. 
Pronoun,    negative    antecedent, 

69. 
Pronoun,  relative,  74. 
Proof-readers,  136. 
Punctuation,        131-137.        See 

Grammatical  Propriety. 
Punctuation  and  Clearness,  145- 

150.    See  Clearness. 


GENERAL  INDEX 


333 


Punctuation  and  Ease,  241-247. 

See  Ease. 
Purist,  the,  26. 

Quod  and  Because,  84. 

Readers,   Courtesy   to,    215, 

246. 
Realism,  275,  297. 
Relative,  restrictive,  80. 
Repetitions,  awkward,  263,  289. 
Reporting  conversation,  275. 
Restraint  (brevity),  317. 
Revision,  294. 
Rhythm  in  prose,  167,  253,  290. 

Shall  and  Will,  119-130.    See 

Grammatical  Propriety. 
should  and  would,  120,  121,  125, 

127,  128. 
Sibilation,  249. 
Slipshod  writing,  3. 
Small  book,  the,  316. 
so  and  as,  97,  250. 
Some  Matters  of  Syntax,  83-95. 

See  Grammatical  Propriety. 
Spelling,  dialect,  277. 
Split  infinitive,  236. 
Spontaneity  and  revision,  65. 
Squinting     Construction,     The, 

168-173.     See  Clearness. 
"Straddle",  238. 
Strength    (force),    formulas   for, 

81,  284. 
Style,  4,  10,  12. 
Style  and  substance,  8. 
Superlative,  in  comparing  two,  99. 
Syntax,  Some  Matters  of,  83-95. 

See  Grammatical  Propriety. 

Tautology,  305. 
Tediousness,  284. 
Tenses,  combination  of,  90. 
than  misused,  101. 


that  overworked,  292;  restrictive, 
80. 

"they  singular",  72. 

Truth,  17-20.  See  Introduc- 
tory Chapters. 

two  first,  first  two,  108. 

Two  Forms  of  Clumsiness,  236- 
240.    See  Ease. 

Unstudied  Talk,  41,  259. 
Usage,  grammar  and,  23;  estab- 
lished, subject  to  criticism,  26. 

Vestiges,  306. 

Was  for  Were,  91,  94. 

watch,  with  infinitive,  89;    with 

object  clause,  113. 
we,  editorial,  273. 
were  for  had  been,  93;   required, 

94. 
what,  "conjunction"  (but  what), 

79. 
What  the  Play  Treats  On,  14-16. 
See  Introductory  Chapters. 
when  for  and  then,  289. 
which,  double  construction,  79, 
80;    not  melodious,  81;    over- 
worked, 293. 
"who  objective",  77. 
"whom  nominative",  76. 
Will,   Shall   and,    119-130.     See 

Grammatical  Propriety. 
witness,  with  infinitive,  89. 
Words,  importance  of,  5;    nat- 
ural objects,  7 ;  thrown  away, 
not  wasted,  64.  259. 
Words  in  General,  Misused,  104- 
118.     See  Grammatical  Pro- 
priety. 
"Wordy",  311. 
would  better  (first  person),  122. 
would,  should  and,  120,  121,  125, 
127,  128. 


43 


c 


^       £X~ 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


■W/L 


m  L9-Series4939 


JU>s*Z\ 


Ifllllllllllllll  I 

3  1158  00900  8953  PE 

]     U^C  ^b  "^fc^  .  K29w 


1^^0  352423    8 


O^A^ 


4^£/* 


*fa,  *cl*4jL, 


I  i| 


